| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Software isn't sentient...Software isn't sentient...Posted Jun 4, 2008 3:42 UTC (Wed) by orospakr (guest, #40684)Parent article: Open Source Software Shows Its Muscle (Law.com)
By far the most glaring error I see in this submission is that they refer to software itself having freedom, not people. To be honest, I don't think the software itself cares about being free, one way or another. Not yet, anyway. ;) That is one of the more warped ways I've seen Free Software portrayed; the whole idea is that the users *do* have freedom, while a few specific freedoms are restricted to ensure that others may enjoy the same level of freedom as you.
(Log in to post comments)
Software isn't sentient... Posted Jun 4, 2008 8:06 UTC (Wed) by macc (subscriber, #510) [Link] The whole article is a slanted opinion piece disguised as a "scholarly disection". The interesting thing is that the cultural background he exposes ( i.e. the backtrack of his viewpoint) is that of an association of thieves. "If I can't steal indiscriminately from others due to the GPLn this is a bad thing." MACC
Software isn't sentient... Posted Jun 6, 2008 14:03 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] I think lutchann's characterization is more accurate. The piece is just viewing things from a different perspective - the perspective of a lawyer providing advice to companies that might intend to use OSS. He's saying pretty much what OSS people say: "You need to be aware, in detail, of what the license requires before you use OSS." Is that FUD? Only if you assume that everyone is prepared to share their value-add code openly, as people coming from the OSS side typically do. If you're someone, or a company, concerned about being able to keep your proprietary code proprietary, you DO need to be completely clear about the licenses on the software you use and to have a healthy respect for what courts might decide if a developer claims that you have violated a license. The article points at issues that were the core of discussion in the GPLv3 drafting, identifying exactly the barriers that the drafters meant to erect. How can pointing out those issues be FUD? Nothing in the article says "Oh my God, avoid the use of OSS or you could be risking everything." It says to be aware of potential issues and "make sure that [your] use of open source software is ready for the challenge", which seems like a pretty reasonable warning.
Software isn't sentient... Posted Jun 4, 2008 8:21 UTC (Wed) by jasonjgw (guest, #52080) [Link] I think Richard Stallman is right to argue that the ability to restrict the freedom of others to use, modify and distribute software is not itself a kind of freedom. Those who take the contrary view conveniently overlook the role of copyright law in empowering authors and publishers of copyrighted works to exercise control over their reproduction. It is the legal apparatus of the state that makes this possible. In a situation of perfect freedom - a "state of nature" - there would be no regulation, and hence no power conferred on authors to impose such restraints, backed up and enforced by law. This is the sense in which the GPL, by means of a copyright licence, restores that which the law would otherwise take away - the freedom to distribute modified or unmodified versions of the software. This issue aside, I agree with the earlier comments to the effect that the article is highly misleading.
Software isn't sentient... Posted Jun 4, 2008 10:10 UTC (Wed) by slef (subscriber, #14720) [Link] > they refer to software itself having freedom, not people. Don't anthropomorphise software. It hates that. +1 to the comments above about this being a warped FUDsicle. I've worked with legal librarians and don't remember hearing of Law.com before - I hope I never hear of it or the author's Wolf Greenfield company again.
Software isn't sentient... Posted Jun 6, 2008 13:43 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] I've seen the phrase "software wants to be free" and the characterization of the software having the freedom often in OSS discussions (that is, discussion among OSS supporters). It's hardly new to this article.
|
|
||||||||||||