Sorry, Smokey, it’s not “in Constitution”. It may be in RMS’ interpretation of the Constitution, but that ain’t the same thing.

Not just RMS’ interpretation, but that of the Supreme Court of the United States as well.

RMS, in particular, fails to mention that in Fox Film v. Doyle, the Court also said that the “owner of the copyright, if he pleases, may refrain from vending or licensing and content himself with simply exercising the right to exclude others from using his property.” That, of course, doesn’t suit his agenda quite so well. However inconvenient, it’s a right of the copyright holder, and you don’t get to unilaterally do away with it because it inconveniences you.

I’m not sure whence this comment stems but mandating publication is not part of RMS’ “agenda” — the (L)GPL explicitly permits creating derivations without any requirement for publication (even though it would be within the exclusive rights of the original author to prohibit such).

If that wasn’t meant by constitution, then wouldn’t it be worded like “for companies and individuals to make money and hopefuly make some progress, they can…”, instead of “to promote progress…”?

We can argue over this (and insult each other) whole day long, but the sad fact is that current law is pretty much a “workaround” around constitution, for lobbies and parties to “protect” and distance themselves from ordinary people. Consitution unites, but law divides. It’s not only in US constitution, it’s pretty much in every “democratic” country. In every constitution, people and society are always most important, but law makes sure that these things can be “avoided”.

I’m not going to dissect the mix of fact (copyright terms are indeed too long), fancy (copyright is, in fact, held by creators rather than publishers with increasing frequency) and outright propaganda you refer to in a comment here–that would take an entire blog entry–but allow me to point out that weakening copyright weakens copyleft as well. Without copyright protection, copyleft has no way to enforce its terms.

RMS, in particular, fails to mention that in Fox Film v. Doyle, the Court also said that the “owner of the copyright, if he pleases, may refrain from vending or licensing and content himself with simply exercising the right to exclude others from using his property.” That, of course, doesn’t suit his agenda quite so well. However inconvenient, it’s a right of the copyright holder, and you don’t get to unilaterally do away with it because it inconveniences you.

Hm. Do you believe artists and creators should be allowed any control over their own works?

No, for a long time what we call “propietary” or “non-free” was in fact called “commercial” by everyone in the industry. It’s actually the emergence of FOSS that has caused that distinction to be made. But you knew this, right?

While it is true that the people in the industry equate free with being gratis, the free software movement has long been emphasising the “free speech, not free beer” mantra. It is fine to conduct commerce with free software as long as the commercial activity doesn’t harm society. Proprietary software in any form harms society, and it should not exist.

I guess my point is that we in the free software movement have been distinguishing the difference between freedom and gratis since the 1980’s when RMS started the free software movement.

Wrong. Again.

Always glad to keep you kids off every other blog, community, news and social bookmarking site on the internet, if only for a few minutes. We had one of you over on gentoo-devel a few weeks ago. Luckily that was over quickly.

Notice how he mixes the terms “commercial” and “proprietary”. This is not an accident, he is deliberately confusing them to imply that Free software cannot be used commercially.

No, for a long time what we call “propietary” or “non-free” was in fact called “commercial” by everyone in the industry. It’s actually the emergence of FOSS that has caused that distinction to be made. But you knew this, right?

This is classic FUD

Since that’s from an internal email that was never intended to be published anywhere or seen by anyone outside of the recipients, how can it be “FUD”? It only becomes FUD when you publish it and call it that because it’s convenient to you.

Microsoft’s latest cost-cutting plan and neglect of American workforce.

Really? Looking forward to that. You’re going to be diligent and write one about IBM and every other company in the US that outsources jobs, correct?

which confirms that it is Microsoft’s main concern.

If you were actually analyzing these things instead of looking for the “juicy bits” to editorialize them, you’d also mention that Microsoft in 2002 was only worried about Linux servers, not the desktop. Which is the same as it was in 2000 and today. Although today they have more reasons to be worried about the desktop (ie Ubuntu), their main concern there continues to be Apple. Thus “… no mention anywhere of Apple” is disingenuous at best. Or do you think Gates would mention Websphere when talking about the desktop? Par for the course, as usual. A little bit of facts and a whole lotta drama.

However, this:

A new 747 can’t be done by a non commercial model.

Is of course gunk. The rest of what he’s saying is largely correct, in my opinion. But then you look at these things as a wounded paladin who thinks the Evil Empire is out to get him personally. I try to be a bit more objective.