
Use open source? Then you're a pirate - dreemteem
http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2811&blogid=10
======
CapitalistCartr
In any industry, the major players respond to effective, game-changing,
competition, not with appropriate, creative competitive strategies and
tactics, but by running to the government and begging for a law against the
competition. This has happened over and over in history.

~~~
dangoldin
It's a business decision. It's much cheaper to lobby the government than to
innovate. It would be irrational for them to do otherwise, at least in the
short term.

------
mark_l_watson
So stupid since open source licenses are all about intellectual property
rights: you create something and thus it is your right to determine the
license that allows other people to legally use it.

That said, shitty laws paid for by corporations will be problematic for us (an
easy prediction to make!)

------
tjogin
I don't really mind describing myself as a pirate. They need to come up with a
label that stings. "Thief" works better, but unfortunately also makes it
obvious that it's just bullshit.

~~~
scotty79
I think "Infringer!" sounds really malicious. I could imagine Hollywood B-type
movie with this title.

~~~
ZachPruckowski
"Infringer" doesn't sound malicious, it sounds like you violated the laws of
fashion by hemming your cuffs some ugly way or something.

~~~
scotty79
Infringe 1\. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a
contract; infringe a patent. 2\. (Obsolete) To defeat; invalidate.

Hmmm... This name might actually backfire if second meaning was to be brought
back from obsolescence.

------
lutorm
I guess they are in league with the SCO guy who considered open-source the
equivalent of Communism...

It reminds me of an awesome Swedish cartoon where a kid during WW2 who works
at the post office takes Christmas packages sent to people with fancy titles
and gives them to the poor. When his father finds out, he says "What did you
say you did? I have nurtured a Communist!" and the voiceover goes "... because
Tycho Jonsson was one of those people who thought that anyone who gave
something away for free was a Communist."

~~~
mike_organon
Except in that story, the kid isn't giving his own stuff away for free, he is
stealing, and this sounds similar to "from those according to their ability to
those according to their need."

------
mtarnovan
IIPA claims "open source [...] fails to build respect for intellectual
property rights". Wtf does that even mean ? Not respecting ip rights is one
thing, but since when is anyone's obligation to _build respect_ for ip right ?

~~~
lutorm
Since respect for IP rights was elevated to the status of human rights... or
higher, since the US seems to put HR on the back burner whenever it threatens
commercial or business interests.

------
Slashed
How open-source can be seen as a threatening factor for capitalism? In my
opinion, thanks to open-source, entry barrier for startups is much lower. Even
though, 99% of startups fail - 1% will create new workplaces or will be
acquired by another _big capitalistic_ company.

~~~
lutorm
It's the usual sleigh of hand that equates capitalism with specific current
players. Like the Economist said, "being pro-business is _not_ the same as
being pro-market."

~~~
dasil003
The terrifying thing is that it's easy for a good writer/orator to convince
legislators that software is a zero-sum game. It's easy to visualize a big pie
of software and see open source conversion as cutting into the profits.

Whereas for those of us actually in the industry it's obvious how pathetically
shallowly we've scratched the surface of the potential of software, and how
commodified open source software is the foundation of future software progress
which will never be achieved if everyone has to endlessly pay a tax on every
decades-old innovation that a company stole from academia to bootstrap a
software business back in the day.

------
joshu
Actually it's the swashbuckling and ocean-based armed robbery that makes me a
pirate. Arr!

~~~
gcb
i get a license to use open source from my employer. Does that makes me a
corsair?

------
proemeth
Provocative tagline. It's worth noting that most open source users do so not
to avoid paying, but for more idealistic and teleological reasons.

~~~
mseebach
Maybe not paying as such, but freeing your organisation from the annoyance of
dealing with licenses has been a major factor in some migrations I've seen. I
wouldn't call that ideology, more more of an economic factor, as there is both
a direct cost and an opportunity cost to dealing with licenses.

~~~
robin_reala
Open source products still require you to deal with licences. It’s just that
the software’s usually licensed under a clear and free-as-in-beer licence.

~~~
mseebach
I think you're misunderstanding, we're talking about free software, as in OSI-
approved licenses, not random proprietary software that happens to ship with
source code.

OSI-licensed software isn't "usually" anything, it's always completely free,
both beer and speech.

~~~
notauser
GPL/BSD licensed software doesn't have to be free as in beer - you are
perfectly welcome to charge for it.

(The challenge is how to keep charging for it since anyone you give it to can
also sell it or give it away.)

------
jrockway
It doesn't matter. It's already been proven that code is speech, and unless
there is an amendment to the Constitution, speech cannot be restricted.

If it becomes illegal for me to give away my work for free, I will just sell
unlimited rights to my code for one cent. Proceeds will be donated to the EFF.

------
krobertson
So what exactly does this mean? You get put on a "shame" list? So what. The
article doesn't talk about any legal repercussions. Pointless headline.

It mentions the DMCA, however fails to mention a connection between the
Special 301 list and DMCAs.

~~~
meta
It mostly feeds into other negotiations and trade agreements. It is not
actionable itself but provides political pressure during almost any other
trade agreement.

Canada has been a member of this list for a least the last 2 years and I think
longer than that.
[http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2010/02/annual-301-parad...](http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2010/02/annual-301-parade-
ustr-calls-for.html)

I don't have first hand knowledge but am led to believe that this report is
often used during trade talks to apply pressure to favour USA in negotiations.
(as suggested by the above Howard Knopf and Michael Geist)

------
tcarnell
...well the amount of code 'snippets' developers copy from the Internet
(tutorials, QA forums, tech websites and blogs) - I would argue that almost
all software contains 'open source' code :-) - which again makes a farse of
this type of legislation.

------
systemride
Why did the pirate use open source?

Because he doesn't like trademarrrrrrrrrks.

------
known
Then, I'm a pirate since 1991. I need to update my CV.

------
gcb
in other news. Libraries will be closed because they show little respect for
the knowledge market.

"if you want to learn, enroll in a university. Libraries are destoying jobs"
said the spokeman on the matter.

------
pw0ncakes
It would be amusing if this were a subtle advert for R...

------
chrischen
Communism is bad when it is forced (which it must be in order for any hope of
working properly). I can see the resemblance to the GPL, but in general you
shouldn't equate the two because open source is used as a capitalistic
business model too.

~~~
loup-vaillant
Are you saying that the GPL forces anyone to do anything? It doesn't. You
still have the choice not to use GPL code.

~~~
chrischen
And no one is forcing us to adopt communism. Nothing is truly forced, in the
sense that you have no alternatives.

They are similar because they both take an all or nothing approach that only
works in a perfectly ideal situation.

In a perfectly free software world the GPL would have no problem, but the GPL
(if you want to use the software) forces you to adopt the policies of that
ideal world in the current incompatible unideal world.

Like. Communism, if it is being attempted, people will have to be forced to be
dedicated to the whole (if they want to exist in the group).

Free software should be enforced by nothing but practical reasoning, just as
communism should too (but most people are selfish idiots). The GPL seeks to
enforce it through law, regardless of whether it makes sense here and now
(similar to forced-upon communism).

Also if anyone disagrees with me I'd love a response. Better to win over
enemies than destroy right?

~~~
loup-vaillant
GPL has little to do with communism, for 2 reasons. One is not very important.
The other is crucial.

The lesser reason is the development model of free software: Open Source. To
have the power over an open source project, you have to contribute. The money
is good contributions, and the rewards are reputation and control over the
project. Add in the inevitable political discussions about the direction the
project, and you will see a rather capitalistic micro-society.

The greater reason is that sharing software is not the same thing as sharing
food or shelter. Food and shelter are _scarce_. Sharing them mean having less
of them. Software is _abundant_. Sharing it will _not_ mean having less of it.
Communism forces you to share scarce resources. The GPL forces you to share
abundant resources. This is completely different.

Even then, the only circumstances in which GPL forces you to share is when you
distribute "derived work". Meaning, if you have GPL software, you have the
right to use it and modify it any way you like. Without sharing anything. If
you distribute this software (modified or not), _then_ , you have to release
all of it. Mods included.

This is worth repeating: when you use GPL software, you don't have to share
any of it. Even when you modify it. Remember the 4 freedoms: when you have a
copy of some GPL software, you have: (0) the right to use it any way you like,
(1) the right to study it and modify it any way you like (privately if you
want to), (2) the right to share it, and (3) the right to share your mods. You
_can_ share, but you don't have too. If your company uses GPL software, and
modify it for it's purposes, it doesn't have do release anything. This is very
important. If you had to release your mod no matter what, this would be an
attack to the freedom of thought.

You say the GPL is incompatible with our less than ideal world. Fair enough.
Now, can you name _one_ ideal which is compatible with our world? Even slavery
isn't completely abolished. I mean, any political idea will have its
opponents. The GPL embodies a political idea (not being a slave of your
computer). Therefore, it has opponents. If your conclusion is that a software
licence shouldn't embody political ideas, take a look at proprietary software
licences. Restrictions like "thou shalt not study this software" are indeed
quite political. Especially when this kind of restrictions is widespread —and
it is. The only way to effectively oppose such a political idea is to go
political yourself, and use GPL (or other free) software. If you don't care
about either political ideas, you can wait and see. Which is fine. I do that
for countless political ideas. You can't, however, oppose the GPL without
being in the camp of proprietary software, at least to some extent.

You say the GPL is an "all or nothing" approach. It is not. It was
specifically designed with our current world in mind, to make it go from
proprietary software to free software, progressively. When the GPL wasn't up
to this task, it was not used. The GNU C library, for instance, uses the LGPL.
Meaning you can use the Glibc in proprietary software. This strategy better
served the free software ideals than plain GPL. Of course, for any individual
software, being GPL looks like "all or nothing". In general, however, the
_adoption_ of GPL software can't be but progressive.

I also suspect that you think the GPL is idealistic. Not pragmatic. You may
think the BSD licence is pragmatic. This is a common view. Some people would
like to distribute proprietary software with GPL code in it, only to find that
they can't. They are pissed off by the idealism of GPL. Then they find they
can do that with BSD software. They are pleased by the pragmatism of BSD,
which let them do what they want. Hem. That was the point of view of a
proprietary software vendor.

Actually GPL is way more pragmatic than BSD. Look at what the BSD licence
says: "do whatever you want with my code, I won't ever oppose you or your
political ideas". As neutral as it gets, and a bit weak. Many people who work
on BSD licensed projects don't like proprietary software, but let their code
be used in proprietary software anyway. The GPL, on the other hand says: "If
you want to distribute this code, you will do it on _my_ terms.". The GPL
pragmatically serves an idealistic political agenda (most are, anyway).

Remember: the political agenda behind the GPL is freedom. Communism as it was
implemented heavily restricted your freedoms. Remember Patrick Henry's "Give
me Liberty, or give me Death!". When Richard Stallman asks us, repeatedly, to
give up the convenience of proprietary software to have the freedom of, well,
GPL software, he is closer to the ideals of the founders of America than
communism.

~~~
chrischen
I think you took my comparison too concretely.

Communism is about as similar to the GPL as it is to pro-lifers. Nothing more,
and I did not mean to imply any more similarity than that.

To help you grab on to my extended metaphor:

Communism: a communist controlled authoritarian country => GPL: the subset of
_released_ software licensed under the GPL

Communism: your natural free will and ability to make a choice => GPL: Your
guaranteed rights (in free world) to intellectual property

Communism: everyone's forced to be selfless (fair redistribution of wealth)...
under penalty of death? => GPL: everyone's forced to license under GPL under
penalty of being sued

Communism: if not forced, one person could shift the economy because communism
!= economic equilibrium => GPL: If GPL does not force GPL on derivatives, then
one proprietary software could shift the balance of power so that it's more
advantageous not to open source. This is because if on guy doesn't share, he
expends less resources on helping others, while taking in fruits of others'
labors.

Public domain is like a family, or really small communal group, whereas GPL is
like some authoritarian communist state. You've got the family which works
well on the ideal of dedication to the whole. It's small, but it's all by free
choice. You've got communist China supposedly trying to force this ideal of a
harmonious multi-billion member family on its people, while probably never
going to achieve it. Sure they're converting more people to _communism_ , but
at what cost?

There is no absolute _force_. There is always at least 2 distinct choices, and
any "forcing" as we know it is a result of external pressure. The GPL exerts
an external pressure on decisions, so for all intents and purposes, it
_forces_ , thus limiting true freedom. True freedom is when there are no
external pressures on a decision.

Communism (in practice): In order to propagate and preserve itself it needs to
be forced upon people because the slightest selfish act topples the whole
system. This is opposed to letting everyone _choose_ to be selfless (not
bloody likely, which is why force is necessary). GPL: In order to propagate
and preserve itself it needs to enforce its doctrine by law whether or not it
makes practical sense in individual cases. This is opposed to letting everyone
choose when it's appropriate and practical to open source, and when to
proprieties (like in Communism, it can be disadvantageous for all if only a
few keep their software proprietary). However I do concede that since the GPL
does not force you to release the changes it is one good thing about it. Pro-
lifers (in practice): In order to propagate life and preserve the sanctity of
it, it is necessary to force people to do the morally right thing, whether or
not it's practical in each individual case.

Common themes: absolute black and white world view; end justifying means;
restricting free choice It's particularly hypocritical of the GPL, which
espouses freedom, to achieve it's goal through restriction of freedom. Hey
sure if we are all nice selfless people we could live in a global commune. If
we are all righteous, we wouldn't need to be forced not to kill (or make)
babies we don't want. And if we all understood the benefits of free software,
we wouldn't need to be forced. But we aren't Jesus, aren't righteous, and
aren't smart enough to appreciate free software. Therefore it's unfair to
encourage anything that forces people to pretend the world is ideal.

\------------------------

>Now, can you name one ideal which is compatible with our world? Even slavery
isn't completely abolished. I mean, any political idea will have its
opponents.

Your question is an oxymoron. By definition anything ideal is unattainable,
and as for the purposes of our discussion, it means it's also not compatible
with our world. But I don't know why you are treating me like I'm Microsoft, I
love free software. I've learned all I know from free software and it's let me
build some wonderful things. But I love free software for freedom. And the GPL
is not free. It's trying to make the world free, but by utilizing the very
restriction on software freedoms it's trying to abolish. Hey if free software
is really good for everyone, why not let it propagate by its own merits,
rather than artificial restrictions/terms? I for one have faith in the
practical benefits of free software, and don't believe it's necessary to force
(if you want to benefit from GPL) people to adopt it.

> If your conclusion is that a software licence shouldn't embody political
> ideas, take a look at proprietary software licences. Not my conclusion at
> all, I think free-er licenses are just as political.

> Restrictions like "thou shalt not study this software" are indeed quite
> political. And what's the difference between "thou shalt not study this
> software" and "thou must make any changes public upon distribution"? They
> both restrict your rights. And the only time the GPL's restriction wouldn't
> matter is if the whole world's softwares were under GPL. But that ain't
> happening any time soon, and sure as hell ain't going to happen if I'm
> forced to do it.

> It was specifically designed with our current world in mind, to make it go
> from proprietary software to free software, progressively. Yes progressively
> by force... by constantly limiting our choices until one day we've got none
> but GPL (or do everything yourself).

>Remember: the political agenda behind the GPL is freedom. The whole idea of
freedom is to have freedom in means, not just the ends. Plus, being an ideal,
that end will never be achieved, which means all we've got are the means. So
if the means aren't free, we'll never be free. So given that the GPL restricts
our rights to try to achieve a probably unattainable ideal, we'll probably be
stuck having our rights restricted until the end of world.

> You can't, however, oppose the GPL without being in the camp of proprietary
> software, at least to some extent. That's like saying you can't be pro-
> choice without being at least a little pro-death (which is not true btw).
> Like I said before, I want all software to be free, but I'm not going to
> waste my time _restricting_ rights while trying to achieve that goal.

~~~
loup-vaillant
It looks like it boils down to the restrictive clauses of the GPL. The
reasoning is easy: BSD gives you total freedom. GPL gives you the 4 freedoms
and some restrictions. Logical conclusion: the GPL is less free than the BSD.

This forgets a basic freedom principle however: ones's freedom must stop at
other's. The GPL guarantees that you can't further restrict the freedoms it
gave you. The BSD does not. Effectively, the BSD gives you the freedom to
restrict other's freedoms. We have some examples of liberally licensed
software which were more often distributed as proprietary software rather than
as free software (IIRC, X was such an example). Therefore, when you look at
the society as a whole, you could see that GPL software is _more_ free than
BSD software. (Now that companies see the practical advantages of Open Source,
this effect is arguably weakened.)

My conclusion is that the GPL does a better job at promoting freedom than the
BSD licence. To me that's what's matters. You may still disagree, but I'm out
of arguments.

PS: Sorry for treating you like Microsoft, I got carried away.

~~~
chrischen
Just to be clear that all this only makes sense if we assume that intellectual
property is a sham.

> This forgets a basic freedom principle however: ones's freedom must stop at
> other's.

Ahh, but there is no action which is self-contained. Everything we do will
affect others and somehow restrict someone's freedom in some way. For example
if I take an apple, you can no longer take that same apple. It only becomes
fair when everyone mutually agrees on the terms. Murder is an obvious one we
can all agree on, intellectual property is hazier.

So with the BSD you are guaranteed your software stays free, but other's can
stay within practical limits while still benefitting from free software. And
if enough of this natural, unforced benefitting happens, more people will
learn and move to free by choice, not by force.

In case you compare it to slavery: These are two different things, because for
unfree software, we all have the right to make our own software. It simply
restricts our right to utilize others' creations. But since this is a uniform
restriction, it's not unfair. Slavery is not a uniform restriction. It only
applies to the group being enslaved and affects the same fundamental thing
we're talking about with software: people, but in a different way.

~~~
loup-vaillant
> Just to be clear that all this only makes sense if we assume that
> intellectual property is a sham.

I do. It's a useful sham, however, so I'd think twice before abolishing it.

> So with the BSD […]

I don't think the GPL forces you to choose free software. GPL software just
can't be used to make proprietary software. Right now, you still have plenty
of proprietary alternatives. People still buy them. You still have the choice.
In the end, if the GPL takes over, that will be because everybody who didn't
chose it will be out of business. I'm not sure this is bad in any way.

I think what you actually don't like about the GPL is its give and take
nature: if you don't give, you can't take. So, being forced to give imply
being forced to take. If nobody is forced to take, nobody is forced to give.

Do you think anyone is somehow forced to take? Meaning, does anyone is forced
to distribute GPL derived work? Do you have any example (actual or
hypothetical)?

