This has happened a while ago, but the video along with Tim's take on the event is available now. I don't want to add too much to what you can watch and read there, but the scoop of the issue is this.
Eben Moglen criticizes, quite harshly, Tim O'Reilly for focusing so much for so long on who does what with Free Software and who makes how much money - basically the practicalities, the market trends and hype - while ignoring what really matters, the actual problems that the Free Software movement is facing, the "public policy", the freedom. The way he described facebook was one of the best "got it" moments for me with regards to the picture he wanted to portray. Who cares about what facebook and whatever other "Web 2.0" company is doing at the moment. They're just doing their business and we don't need to have a whole freaking conference talking about how they're doing their business, making money and how cool all this is. That's how I got it.
Again, for $40 above the regular annual registration fee, you can get a plate like it in California (like GNU ROX or I (heart) GNU or whatever seven-letter or less combination you can come up with). Other states have the same program, offering six- and seven-letter combinations.
Considering how popular and sought for he seems to be I tend to be quite interested in insights into Linus' way of thinking, especially how his thinking relates to Free Software and GPLv3 as its legal embodiment specifically, where most of the controversy came about. His answers to the two of the questions from this interview seem quite revealing to me.
Linus Torvalds wrote:
So to me, the GPLv2 ends up being a wonderful balance of 'as free as you can make it', considering that I do want everybody to be able to trust so that they can always get the source code and use it.
Rarely do we see deeper insights into the way Linus Torvalds thinks about Free Software and Open Source. It's usually quotes of his mailing list posts being taken out of context to portray whatever a given journalist wanted to portray (usually something quite sensationalist and controversial, to generate ad money).
For Torvalds, the problem with the provisions for patent-sharing and for restricting the use of lockdown technologies -- what the Free Software Foundation prefers to call TiVoization -- is that they keep some people out of the free exchange of ideas that characterizes open source. "That's the whole point of open source -- different people and entities have different goals, and the very differences are what makes it work well for everybody," he says. "Anybody who tries to hobble science by saying that they won't share information with people they dislike (the military, for example) is seen as an obvious crackpot and idiot. The same, to me, is true of open source."
We started a group in Second Life that wants to realize an island within SL for free software and free culture. Our group consists of about 230 people now and we have meetings at first Sundays of the month at our headquarters: Free and Open Island on Isteria Prime. On other times we hang around there often too.
All details about the initiative are at our Wiki: [http://freeandopenisland.org/wiki/] and we would like to invite people here to have a look at it, visit us and maybe contribute and cooperate.
You can find me in SL by my nickname: Catharina Jacobus
Has this been discussed here already ? Mako Hill's most recent blog entry has lead me to http://freedomdefined.org/ . It's a wiki, and the definition is undergoing some work. Some members here might be interested in participating. I have just extended the German translation a bit. To all linguists here: the following languages need work: Arabic, Chinese (Communist & Traditional), Danish, Basque, Estonian, French, German, Korean, Norwegian (BookmÃ¥l), Dutch, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish. (See [url=http://freedomdefined.org/Translations]Transla
While I usually see some IE-only sites unwilling to change their code to W3C standards, this is the first time for me too see some site (and such a big site) quite willing to change an originally browser-independant site to IE-only (and their reason to do this in their announcement is "for security reasons", which is ridiculous).
Note that their action actually lead to many users' objections, but they even threaten users who are against their decision by saying something like "we'll reserve
Movements for Free Software and Free Culture are essentially movements for freedom in realms related to digital technology (which are increasingly all realms involving knowledge and culture) and as such they are a part of a movement towards solving social and economic injustices in general.
However, considering their potentially even more fundamental negative impact, would it be reasonable to suggest that energy and climate crisis issues are more important than these freedom issues?
How much is freedom worth if we don't have a planet on which we can live healthy lives on? Or how much is freedom worth if we don't have the needed resources for normal life? It does seem that these issues are much more fundamental for our mere existence than the availability of freedom. It pretty much comes down to the question of, what is freedom worth if you can't live?
Some comments to a couple of videos I watched (this and this) made me want to discuss the relation between web and reality.
What if, after the Web 2.0 buzz dies down, the world realizes that we are in a way now trapped by our own hands into a web which we cannot escape easily anymore? What if we realize then that we have created a virtuality at the expense of rather than as an extension to reality?
I've seen some comments saying that they are hooked, jacked, plugged, addicted to the web. We don't need intelligent malicious robots to create a matrix for us. We're doing it all by ourselves and plugging our own heads into it.
I today stumbled on a remix of the song that says "We don't need no education" and my first reaction to that song usually is "heck, the message is bad, we should all be educated". But today for some reason I specially noticed that part where they sing "we don't need no thought control". Then I thought, this song is actually a protest against top down conditioning, AKA brainwashing - I can go with that.
And, the funny processes in my brain went from there to imagining what now formed into an idea of a show, a podcast about Free Culture that would play music for various themes that are being presented. The way I imagined it, this podcast would be rich with music and sound clips and would have a rather bold style (perhaps sometimes controversial) with bits of humor and silliness sprayed over it to add some additional flavor.