RegDeveloper has caught up with Eben Moglen to talk about the Novell's deal with Microsoft, FSF's response to it and GPLv3 as the basis of that response. Instead of litigation, which has been suggested by some on the basis of potential violation of the GPLv2, the tool which will be used against this largely negatively criticized deal is the new version of the GPL.
It is increasingly becoming clear what the deal between Microsoft and Novell really means for GNU/Linux. Hear it from Microsoft itself: Ballmer: Linux users owe Microsoft. Can you hear the sound of those rattles?
I resist the urge to title this entry as "The monster speaks". Knowing the history of RIAA as of late and their actions, you can barely get yourself to even read what its president has to say. Should you need a reminder just think of all the not-so-rich families which have been sued over their heads for supposed copyright infringement even without proper evidence and a transparent process.
A recent article by LinuxJournal's Nicholas Petreley, named "A five year deal with Microsoft to dump Novell/SUSE", points to the contradiction in statements of the two companies in regard to the patent infringement issue and calls for two things, for customers and users to essentially boycott Novell SuSE ("first front") and FSF to take a stand and actually sue Novell ("second front"). The latter is obvious from a statement which also reflects an apparent disagreement with GPLv3 as means of combating DRM, quoting:
Doc Searls has published a well written article on what is an extremely important issue today, the issue of ownership of ideas, contrasting the lock down of innovative ideas with the value of opening them up towards further cooperative development. He has named the article as Ten ideas about Ideas presenting ten points about the nature of ideas and the best way to release their potential.
It is almost a common knowledge that Bill Gates had a certain vision when he co-founded Microsoft: a computer in every home that can be easily operated. Pity that this vision seemed to have had a hidden implication that every of these computers would have to run Microsoft's operating system. Nevertheless, the vision of widespread and pretty much ubiquitous digital empowerment is largely coming true.
Something about certain comments to CNET's recent "Week in review: Vista Furore" overview almost gets me chills. It is as if people are finally waking up, possibly without even being aware of what all of what they are hearing and experiencing now means on the bigger scale.
If you would decisively want to evaluate the concepts of ethics and morality from the ground up where would you start? What is that most fundamental moral layer on which all other moral layers build? This most fundamental bottom layer is the one which has to be considered before all others in a society, as without it, all other moral points are potentially compromised. This article argues that the fundamental moral layer is the "state of freedom" and hence the most fundamental moral question, the first one to ask, is how free is the society and its individuals.
The Wiktionary states that a vigilante is:
- "One who takes the law into one's own hands"
When we think of this we think of mobs going around beating and killing people they believe have broken the law. In these cases the police usually treat the vigilantes as offenders and those the vigilantes persecuted as victims. This seems fair and just doesn't it? People shouldn't take the law into their own hands.
Despite the fact that the world's countries have laws, which are to be enforced by the countries' judicial system, many actively support the digital vigilante: Digital Restrictions Management (DRM).
One of the active bloggers on Libervis Blogs, Charles Schulz is writing a three part article series examining the Free Software community and relationships between users and developers. He is asserting that the notions of "users" and "developers" are highly irrelevant.