Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
GNU is Not Unix Your Rights Online

Stallman Says Pirate Party Hurts Free Software 546

Posted by kdawson
from the arrr-not-so-fast dept.
bonch writes "Richard Stallman has written an article on the GNU Web site describing the effect the Swedish Pirate Party's platform would have on the free software movement. While he supports general changes to copyright law, he makes a point that many anti-copyright proponents don't realize — the GPL itself is a copyright license that relies on copyright law to protect access to source code. According to Stallman, the Pirate Party's proposal of a five-year limit on copyright would remove the freedom users have to gain access to source code by eventually allowing its inclusion in proprietary products. Stallman suggests requiring proprietary software to also release its code within five years to even the balance of power."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stallman Says Pirate Party Hurts Free Software

Comments Filter:
  • Correction (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jack9 (11421) on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:16PM (#28810909)

    Stallman Says Pirate Party Hurts HIS VERSION OF Free Software

    FTFY

    • by pilgrim23 (716938) on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:23PM (#28811019)
      Its the eye-patch; it detracts from the visual purity of the cosmic goodness of the beard
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by erroneus (253617)

      You are most correct to point that out and it is my sentiment as well. If a 5-year-old version of some software is worth commercial exploitation, then let them have it. Fair is fair. BSD licensed code is a commonly exploited open source license where people and companies take without returning. Look at Mac OS X as a prime example, but Windows also contains BSD licensed components... or it did... not sure if it does now or not.

      He is also correct in pointing out that weakening copyright terms and law in g

      • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

        by NickFortune (613926)

        You are most correct to point that out and it is my sentiment as well. If a 5-year-old version of some software is worth commercial exploitation, then let them have it. Fair is fair

        As long as it works both ways, of course. If a commercial work is over five years old, then it too should pass into the public domain. As long as that's agreed, then yeah: fair is fair.

        Without that, what you propose is a charter to plunder free software without offering anything in return.

      • Re:Correction (Score:5, Interesting)

        by vijayiyer (728590) on Friday July 24, 2009 @04:52PM (#28812555)

        Did you consider that developers releasing under BSD might actually enjoy the fact that their code may have a much wider use rate than GPL developers? Lots of software released under BSD has changed the world. That might be more attractive to some developers than ensuring that derivative works are always free.

        • Re:Correction (Score:4, Insightful)

          by morcego (260031) on Friday July 24, 2009 @05:58PM (#28813567)

          Which begs the question: Isn't BSD License more "free" than the GPL ? I always had problems with "enforced freedom". If it is enforced, how can it be freedom ? If it is truly free, people should be able to do anything they want, including using it on a commercial closed-source product.

          I always released stuff under the BSD license, except for a few contributions I did to already existing software.

          And yeah, I like the GPL, and am glad for it (Linux, WRT software, gcc etc). But I would never call it a tool of software "freedom".

          • Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)

            by ShieldW0lf (601553) on Friday July 24, 2009 @06:26PM (#28813889) Journal

            Is a country that gives you the freedom to keep slaves more free than a country that doesn't?

            If you repackage my software and are better at marketing it than me, but you build vendor lock in into the code and a million people end up beholden to you as a consequence, did my code help bring people freedom?

            Why do drug companies have to release their secret recipies, and car companies have to submit to stringent supervision, but software companies are allowed to release binary software onto billions of computers with absolutely zero oversight?

            Releasing source should be required. It's a public safety concern that it is not.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by morcego (260031)

              Is a country that gives you the freedom to keep slaves more free than a country that doesn't?

              Is a country that allows you the freedom to choose being a slave more free than a country that stops you from doing so ?

              If you repackage my software and are better at marketing it than me, but you build vendor lock in into the code and a million people end up beholden to you as a consequence, did my code help bring people freedom?

              Nope. Your software didn't affect their freedom in any way (either positive or negative

    • Re:Correction (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bonch (38532) on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:54PM (#28811511)

      Any GPL code would lose its protected status, which would apply to most of the free software you use. The whole point of the GPL is to give users access to source indefinitely, and that's why it's amusing when Slashdot's readership adopts all these anti-copyright positions that would end up invalidating the GPL, because the GPL is a license that copyrights the source code. Without GPL protection (aka, copyright protection), proprietary vendors could do whatever they wanted with your code.

      It really gives one the impression that Slashdot's readers just accept whichever position is most self-serving--ranting about the evils of copyrights in a pro-piracy article (because they want free stuff from P2P networks), and ranting about the evils of commercial corporations in a GPL violation article (because they want free GPL software). You can't have it both ways.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Otto (17870)

        Without GPL protection (aka, copyright protection), proprietary vendors could do whatever they wanted with your code.

        And we could do whatever we wanted with theirs.

        I'm okay with that tradeoff.

    • Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mcgrew (92797) on Friday July 24, 2009 @04:01PM (#28811599) Homepage Journal

      Reading TFA, I see there's one thing the P Party says that I don't agree with: the five year copyright term. Yes, copyrights are far too long, but five years is far too short. IINM it was 20 years extendable to thirty in 1900, that seems to me a good length. If you can't make any money off your work after twenty years you're not going to, and if you HAVE made money off of it in twenty years, well, you've made your money, you have been encouraged to do more creating. If the programs I'd registered copyright on had made me a millionaire, I'd be on a beach somewhere with a cold drink in my hand.

      Stallman says:
      Even if copyright permits noncommercial sharing, the EULA may forbid it.

      I still don't see how clickthrough EULAs can possibly be seen as a "contract". My friend Mike buys a program and since he's not technologically savvy, he has me (or his son) install it for him. He's bought and paid for the copy; he owns that copy. Unlike the dinasaur days when the world only had a few hundred computers, he didn't sign any contract. Now, I or his son installs HIS software on HIS computer, and he doesn't even likely know there IS a contract. How can he be held to that so-called "contract"?

      As to DRM, I think if you use DRM your work should not be eligible for copyright at all. That's what copyright is for - to protect the work.

      Noncommercial copying should not be against the law, and before the digital age it wasn't.

      From TFA:
      Users, still denied the source code, would still be unable to use the program in freedom. The program could even have a "time bomb" in it to make it stop working after 5 years, in which case the "public domain" copies would not run at all.

      This should be illegal. And software can be reverse engineered and a third party patch applied.

      Once the Swedish Pirate Party had announced its platform, free software developers noticed this effect and began proposing a special rule for free software: to make copyright last longer for free software, so that it can continue to be copylefted

      First, Stallman says he would be happy with ten years, I don't agree. But I'm a geezer, 20 years is a lot longer to a 27 year old than it is to a 57 year old*. Secondly, after the original copyright expired, all the parts of the work written after original copyright are still protected by copyright; if GNU's copyright were to run out tomorrow, all enhancements made to GNU would still be under copyright.

      I could support a law that would make GPL-covered software's source code available in the public domain after 5 years, provided it has the same effect on proprietary software's source code

      Personally, I don't think you should be able to copyright object code. The purpose of copyright (in the US at least) is to get works into the public domain. The source code should be available to the public, justas details of a patented machine are. After all, the whole idea is to "promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences", not to line somebody's pockets.

      That said, it's been said that when you're selling something, make the asking price high and you can always come down. Perhaos this is what the PP's "5 years" is about: "Ok, we'll compromise on a 30 year copyright length".

      I'd liketo see another reform that Free Software fols disagree on me with: I'd like one to actually have to register a copyright. There should be no registration fee, and registration could be done at your country's copyright office's web site.

      *Yes, Im aware that Stalman is a geezer, too.

      • Re:Correction (Score:4, Interesting)

        by mabhatter654 (561290) on Friday July 24, 2009 @05:07PM (#28812845)

        You hit on good points except they're slightly wrong.

        First, "software" under copyright is now the "shiny disc" not the source code. It's been that way since at least the late 70's. That means that "example video game" is published in a proprietary medium but the source code and media is retained in a vault as "trade secret". So while FOSS is playing by the rules and losing their rights in 5 years "game company" is not losing their work because it's not "published".

        Next, at the enterprise level much code (or things like ERP or HR systems) is "leased" to corporate IT departments, not sold. In some of the code I've seen the programs are under private copyright, and have contractual terms that the code given to the company is "unreleased trade secrets" therefore it won't ever fall under regular copyright rules because it's not "published" publicly, it's kept as a "work in progress". I can see that extended to EULAs quite easily, especially for things like downloadable content... you're just "borrowing".

        Lastly, "Public Domain" isn't something that legally exists. The granted term of "copyright" expires, but courts and the legislatures will not codify items as "non-owned". In capitalist countries everything must have an owner.. there's no legal concept or protection for something not to be "owned". As soon as somebody picks up the code, fixes it up a bit, it's now "their" code... the academic idea of "plagiarism" we all learned in school has no legal basis in the real world... if something can't be proved owned (i.e. serial numbered and registered) then it belongs to whoever is holding it now.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by russotto (537200)

          First, "software" under copyright is now the "shiny disc" not the source code. It's been that way since at least the late 70's. That means that "example video game" is published in a proprietary medium but the source code and media is retained in a vault as "trade secret". So while FOSS is playing by the rules and losing their rights in 5 years "game company" is not losing their work because it's not "published".

          The source code is an "unpublished work", not necessarily a trade secret.

          Next, at the enterpris

    • WTF Spin! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Requiem18th (742389)

      Can you count all the spin doctors using this to smear RMS as pushing "His (as in only his) Twisted (yes, ppl are using this word) Version of Free".

      Essentially what RMS want us to avoid is a world where computers don't obey their owners.

      Imagine a world where everybody can install a 5 years old version of Windows 7 that none the less, refuses to install VLC, puts secret IDs in your MSOffice documents, callbacks the RIAA to request permission every time you launch your Windows Media Player. etc.

      And he has no

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kartoffel (30238)

      Exactly. Besides, if GPL software were really free, it wouldn't need *any* kind of copy protection - copyleft or copyright.

  • Why wait 5 years? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta (162192) * on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:18PM (#28810947) Journal

    If access to source code is truly a right, shouldn't that right be enshrined in law from day one?

  • by Reverend528 (585549) * on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:22PM (#28810993) Homepage
    I'm pretty sure Lessig already proposed this 5 years ago. Both ideas of short copyright and a requirement that the source code should be released for copyright to be valid.
    • by l3ert (231568) on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:39PM (#28811255)
      This is why Stallman waited until now to propose it.
    • short copyright and a requirement that the source code should be released for copyright to be valid.

      In other words, like patents except the delayed release of the design.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Omnifarious (11933) *

      I like this idea too. Copyright was originally conceived of as a balance. People agree to give up their right to copy in exchange for the hopeful encouragement of publishing companies to publish and authors to write.

      People who want copyright on their software should have to give something up to get it. There must be a balance for taking away people's right to copy.

    • by jwthompson2 (749521) <{moc.smargorpnialp} {ta} {semaj}> on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:49PM (#28811403) Homepage

      The second session of the United States Congress established 14 year Copyright terms with an optional 14 year renewal. Going back to that and requiring publication for application of Copyright would be a good step.

    • by jmorris42 (1458) * <jmorris@[ ]u.org ['bea' in gap]> on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:58PM (#28811567)

      > a requirement that the source code should be released for copyright to be valid.

      The solution is simple. Binaries are an accidental byproduct of the current technology so don't build the law around them. Solve the real problem.

      Copyright is supposed to be a benefit to the public by granting a limited monopoly to encourage the production of new things which eventually go into the public domain. Current copyright law combined with current commercial software release methods do neither. The time limit is such that any program in the public domain will be useful only to archaeologists running emulators and without the source they won't learn much at any rate.

      Yes cut the time limit for software, that is the first part.

      Then clarify Copyright Law to require the benefit to the public. Only the Source Code, written by humans, is a creative work worthy of copyright so the complete buildable source plus all control scripts, etc must be submitted when registering the copyright. The binaries will only be copyrighted as 'derived works' of that original work.

      Software makers would howl about revealing their secret methods. My reply is Copyright isn't supposed to protect secrets, the idea is to REVEAL knowledge in exchange for the limited monopoly. Same for patents.

      I believe that would solve RMS's problems with the proposed five year copyright term.

  • Balance of power? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:22PM (#28811005)

    Life is not a game. You want to show people the source... neat. You want to not... also neat. Yes, the GPL needs copyright law to force people to reopen the source- but is that a good thing?

    Maybe instead of asking for mandatory source opening on all products, ask for it only on products that have been abandoned? The LoC could keep all source in escrow, and once that company stopped building new products based on the source, it could be opened up.

    • by MBGMorden (803437) on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:26PM (#28811073)

      Maybe instead of asking for mandatory source opening on all products, ask for it only on products that have been abandoned? The LoC could keep all source in escrow, and once that company stopped building new products based on the source, it could be opened up.

      Do you really want releasing software to become a process for which you have to register and do paperwork with the government at every release?

      Honestly, I don't know how any of this is considered "Free" (as in Papers, please.).

  • Giants? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by EvilBudMan (588716) on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:23PM (#28811007) Journal

    What does Stallman mean by meandering giants? Bill gates couldn't whip me because I have a sling.

  • subject (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:24PM (#28811035)

    Honestly, merely reducing copyright to 40 years from creation would be a MASSIVE step in the right direction.

  • Release later? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tubal-Cain (1289912) on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:25PM (#28811051) Journal

    Stallman suggests requiring proprietary software to also release its code within five years to even the balance of power.

    Why not require the source code to be submitted with the copyright registration?

    • Re:Release later? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mrvan (973822) on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:41PM (#28811299)

      This actually makes a lot of sense.

      In the original purpose of copyright law - books and other written material - there is no source code other than the thing that is distributed.

      In a sense, companies like MS use copyright not to be a sole distributer of the copyrighted material (the source code), but to prevent all distribution of said material. By withholding the "manuscript", we ("the people") are granting a temporary monopoly on something we don't even really know what it is.

      Computer programs are quite different from the creative works copyright was intended for, and also quite different from the "machines" and "inventions" patents were intended for. By trying to apply legislation to something quite different than what it was meant for we are creating a lot of problems, including overly broad patents, copyright monopoly on something that isn't distributed at all, unclear definition of derivative work in the face of bundling, linking, and reverse engineering, etc. etc..

      Instead of limiting copyright to X years (possibly a very good idea for books, songs etc.), I think we need to think of a way to protect software makers from abuse of the fruits of his/her labour, while giving "the people" something substantive in return for the monopoly, the policing, etc.

      This solution could include registering source code but it might be better to protect a "program" or "solution" than to try to protect source code as if it is some kind of literary work, and then extend that to the compiled version of that source code

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by deblau (68023)
      This is already required, sort of. See 37 CFR 202.20(c)(2)(vii)(A) [gpoaccess.gov]:

      (c) Nature of required deposit.
      ...
      (2) In the case of certain works, the special provisions set forth in this clause shall apply. In any case where this clause specifies that one copy or phonorecord may be submitted, that copy or phonorecord shall represent the best edition, or the work as first published, as set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
      ...
      (vii) Computer programs and databases embodied in machine-readable copies other t

  • by sys.stdout.write (1551563) on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:28PM (#28811097)
    We played Stallman Says at computer camp last summer. It's like Simon Says except the winner gets a fake beard to wear for the rest of the afternoon.

    I... don't kiss many girls.
  • THE TRUTH (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:36PM (#28811209)

    Richard Stallman is jealous that pirates have the better beards.

  • by jythie (914043)

    While I can not imagine it passing, the idea of commercial software entities having to release their source after 5 years if they want copyright protection sounds wonderful.

    Software copyright is the only form where the material has no automatic way to enter the public domain when it should. Some kind of escrow as a requirement for protection would do the trick.

  • Ideas (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Eravnrekaree (467752) on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:41PM (#28811293)

    Stallman makes a good point. One problem with copyright at present and the distribution models is that it actually inhibits the development of knowledge and civilisation by making information more difficult to maintain. I would like to see copyright terms rolled back to what it was originally before it was extended so many times, and also for copyright to expire immediately when the work is no longer being published or being made accessible at the similar cost it was originally offered at. The copyright could be reinstated if the work is offered again by its author for a similar price as it was originally offered. I would like to see an ability to pay scheme introduced that would allow poor/low income persons to access knowledge at a lower cost, and for access to software at reduced cost for hobbyist use. one of the problems with commercial software is it is so often so expensive, the price can sometimes be the same for a revenue producing busienss as a non commercial hobbyist. The development model and source is also closed which retards the improvement of the software, and takes away control of users from being able to understand what the software they paid for and they run on their computer is doing, or offer their own improvements to the software. I would like to see more of a model adopted by companies of an ability to pay price structure, and where they provide source code to those who use the sotware, even if under a proprietary source licence.

  • After the Ninja's appointed him as their leader with the katana, it appears that this is just another battle in the seemingly endless war between Ninjas and pirates.
  • Stallman Says Pirate Party Hurts Expensive Operating System and Brand Name Software Companies

    Corrected it for you.

  • by GiMP (10923) on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:47PM (#28811379)

    I think that the optimal number of years is closer to 15, it should be treated like "classic cars" are in Pennsylvania. This is enough years that publishers have had sufficient time to make profit, that the work has had sufficient opportunity to make and exploit its cultural impact, and is not so many years that the work is lost from lack of preservation.

    In terms of software, 15 years is quite a bit of time, enough that software is unlikely to be of significant commercial use, so that copyright-lapsed software shouldn't too seriously affect the sales of modern solutions. Open sourced material lapsed into the public domain wouldn't be as much of a concern as it would be within a 5 year period.

    If this was in force today, old versions of the GNU toolkits, the X11 system, and even Linux itself would be in the public domain. That might seem scary, but we're talking really old versions. If someone in 2009 wants to include Linux 0.99 into their embedded product without contributing their changes back, I'm not sure thats really a bad thing.

  • He's nuts (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:48PM (#28811391)

    Stallman was at my university for a lecture a few months ago. Halfway through he starts lambasting our IT department, most of whom are in the audience, for requiring users to authenticate before gaining network access. The school has a policy specifically *banning* tracking usage or anything invasive. They only require that users provide a username/password before getting network access, and he tears them a new one.

    The IT department, BTW, is moving *away* from proprietary (specifically Microsoft) products. Right as the IT department is moving *to* open source, one of FOSS's biggest names decides to publicly hate on them.

  • A compromise (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cpt kangarooski (3773) on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:53PM (#28811493) Homepage

    Revitalizing copyright formalities would help to satisfy both parties. One of the traditional formalities that an applicant for a copyright registration in the US had to fulfill was depositing 'best copies' of his work with the Library of Congress. This not only served as a way for the Library to enlarge its collection inexpensively, but also aided the public by preserving copies of the work, which the public could use.

    In the case of computer software, I propose that all people seeking a US copyright for works which include a software portion provide copies of the software in such forms, and with such supplemental material as the Library determines are best in order to preserve the work for posterity, and make the knowledge in the work accessible to at least other persons having a reasonable skill in the art, and which pose no, or the least barrier for people to make any and all lawful uses of that software at any time (such as making adaptations or backups pursuant to 17 USC 117 during the copyright term, or anything at all after the copyright term). This would not make software any more free than it currently is, but would make software less opaque. The non-copyrightable ideas and algorithms and learning that compromise a given program would be more accessible even during the term, furthering the goal of promoting the progress of science, just as pioneering literary techniques may be learned by reading a book, and used freely.

    Developers who wished to keep their secrets would, of course, be free to not meet the requirements for copyrightable software. Their public domain works would continue to have secret source code.

    I am aware, btw, that this would require that the US withdraw from most of the various copyright treaties. Since no meaningful reform is possible with those treaties in place (such as realistic term lengths), I'm in favor of withdrawal anyway.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by GiMP (10923)

      Unfortunately, while I like the spirit of your idea, I think it is misguided due to the unfortunate consequences such a law would bring. With your proposal, any work not submitted in full to the copyright office would not be given copyright protections. With dynamic works such as software, this would be a disaster! It would require that either all changes to GPL works are first processed by the copyright office, or worse, those works fall into the public domain! It would kill all open source licenses an

  • by PostPhil (739179) on Friday July 24, 2009 @04:00PM (#28811593)

    There are two camps using copyright law as protection:

    1. Copyright law keeps source code non-proprietary (e.g. GPL)
    2. Copyright law keeps source code proprietary, so you have to pay to use the product (e.g. most commercial software)

    Now apply a 5 year expiration of copyright:

    Result to 1:
    The source code is already visible, and nothing protects the code anymore from someone stealing it and making it proprietary, despite the intention of the authors for it to remain non-proprietary.

    Result to 2:
    The source code is NOT already visible. Lack of copyright protection makes the product free-as-in-beer, but mere expiration of copyright does not force the authors to release the source code. So the result is that no one else can steal the source code like they could for expired FLOSS copyright.

    So yes, there IS an imbalance of power. In no way does this help authors preserve the freedom to keep software non-proprietary.
    And no, it's NOT just a simple case of each side has a right to keep their code open or closed as they see fit. It favors proprietary software to remain proprietary, but removes protections for software to remain non-proprietary. Stallman is right: the only way to keep it fair is if both sides must make the source code available.

    THINK PEOPLE.

  • by FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) on Friday July 24, 2009 @04:06PM (#28811671) Homepage
    I predict we would actually see far more software emerge as people revisited old software which was no longer supported and made their own, better versions. I'd love to see new takes on software like Hypercard or even OSes like Windows 2000. Since neither are supported anymore, who does it hurt to open them up?
  • by Mc Fly (52238) on Friday July 24, 2009 @04:14PM (#28811823)

    Because his "no-compromise" attitude has been proven right for many years. I envy him for being consistent thru all these years. Unfortunately, it is more confortable to live in a grey area, because it gives more benefits in the short term. Even if you think he is wrong, he has been holding his opinion for many years. That fact by itself deserves recognition and respect...

  • Freedom (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Arthur B. (806360) on Friday July 24, 2009 @04:16PM (#28811857)

    would remove the freedom users have to gain access to source code by eventually allowing its inclusion in proprietary products

    This is not freedom, this is a possibility. Labeling possibilities as freedoms is essentially a marxist trick.

    If I download GPL code without the GPL license from a torrent, I am not agreeing to any restriction on my freedom, I am not signing anything. The GPL uses a copyright to force me to disclose source code if I distribute derivative products, yet I never agreed to the GPL in the process.

    The pirate party is right to oppose copyright, and Stallman understands correctly that this is a danger for the GPL. The GPL uses copyright to force people to disclose source code while traditional copyright uses copyright to force people not to disclose information. Both of them restrict freedom.

  • by ikegami (793066) on Friday July 24, 2009 @04:27PM (#28812075)

    If Copyright had a limit of five years, the 5 year old version of the software would become public domain, not changes done since then.

    I feel that software would still be created at the same rate with a five year limit as it does with the current insane copyright lengths. That means that Copyright has fulfilled its purpose of promoting progress.

  • Simple economics ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Wrath0fb0b (302444) on Friday July 24, 2009 @06:20PM (#28813835)

    There is a whole lot of philosophical circle-jerkery going on here to rationalize a very simple position -- Stallman doesn't like the Pirate Party because piracy makes F/OSS software comparatively less attractive than commercial software. That is to say, the major competition among the tech-savvy is not $200 Windows vs. $0 Linux it's between $0 Windows vs. $0 Linux.

    Stallman would like nothing more than for Windows (& all other commercial software) to have a 100% foolproof antipiracy scheme out of nothing more than simple free-market economics.

    We discussed this to death: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/15/1933254 [slashdot.org]

You know that feeling when you're leaning back on a stool and it starts to tip over? Well, that's how I feel all the time. -- Steven Wright

Working...