I have always had a problem with the notion that all source code should be open source. Firstly you may not wish to have to support software that you write in terms of the source, secondly in a lot of instances you have neither the time or the interest to go ratting around in a mountain of code when using it does the job and lastly I am yet to see the point of feeding a pile of freeloaders who are too lazy to write their own.

Years ago when I released the tiny text editor TheGun, I used to get mountains of requests for the source code for it by people who had no reason to chase it apart from wanting to cash in on something so small. It has always been a testbed for ideas I had and needed something to try them out on apart from it being more or less useful as a text editor.

I basically support the idea that released code should be under the control of the author so if they want to sell or give away the binaries, publish the source as Public Domain or in fact any form they see as serving their interests. What I actively oppose is any notion that someone has a "right" to freeload on source code that you have written yourself.

A long time ago I had a running debate with the authors of the UPX exe packer because of the very unusual licence it had wearing the GPL banner and its among the reason why I don't particularly support GPL. Thsese guys wanted to say that you own source code was a work based on their software and imposed conditions on their software's use if the target was not GPL software.

I solved the problem where I use compression of EXE files by using superior technology developed by JIBZ. I can also post patch it and do anything I like with it as it is not subject to such a nonsense licence.
Posted on 2004-05-23 03:11:37 by hutch--
The only real problem I have on a personal level with the GPL is that I live in a capitalistic world and it apparantly not. You can not change the world by cutting off your own life-lines.
Posted on 2004-05-23 06:10:24 by Hiroshimator
Competition is natural for all animals, and ofcourse also for humans. We have to compete in order to survive.
Capitalism is a natural exponent of that.
Any other form is artificial, and as we've seen from communism, it doesn't work, because it gets corrupted by some people. People don't want to be equal. Being equal with your neighbour means that you have 50% chance of survival.

I believe in capitalism, as we know it today. Moderated and socialized, but still having competition as the driving factor. It works, and that's what's important. Communism has proven not to work. And I don't think that GPL will work either, unless we abandon capitalism... But the problem is that that does not apply to just the software industry, but it will have to apply to the entire world. I cannot go "here's my sourcecode" and expect the baker to go "here's some bread".
So until that changes, I NEED to be able to make money from sourcecode. If that means I cannot open my code, so be it. My survival is more important than other people who want to freeload on my hard work.
Posted on 2004-05-23 06:43:03 by Scali
in a hypocrite world runned by people like Scali and by extreem greed that mimics generosity

Is this some kind of personal attack/insult/whatever? I do not appreciate this at all!
What do you mean to say by this anyway?
Posted on 2004-05-23 06:46:02 by Scali
I don't believe in capitalism, it's just slavery with a nicer mime, that, for me, has nothing to do with competition, since as with any competition that would require the *best* in something to win. Capitalism is the exact opposite of that.

Capitalism is about keeping people subjugent through poverty.

But it's the prevalent system right now, so we'll have to run with it.
Posted on 2004-05-23 07:53:40 by Hiroshimator
Capitalism is about making money. Making money is about appealing to a public, which means making the best products.
You confuse capitalism with corruption. Sure, a successful capitalist will have the means to bribe people or do other things to get what he wants.
But this is because of capital itself (and human nature), not capitalism. The exact same thing happened in communist countries. They were corrupt and money ruled.

Pure capitalism to me is about being the best, so you can make the most money.
And that is what I am in favour of. I think it's healthy to be rewarded in proportion to the quality of your work.
Communism has shown that if all people are rewarded the same, they will generally reduce their efforts to an absolute minimum. I have visited communist countries (DDR and Czechoslovakia), and the pace there was amazingly slow, compared to my western standards.
I remember once being at a station, where the railroad crossing closed about 30 minutes before the train left the station.
People would just get out of their cars and start to make smalltalk with eachother, apparently not frustrated by the loss of time at all. It was probably normal to them. And they didn't lose any money over it anyway, since everyone got paid the same.

Another thing there was when we went to a coffeeshop and ordered coffee and some cake, it took about 30 minutes to get it, after having our order taken... The poor waiter did not even know how to operate the cash-register, and apparently he could not do mathematics with his head either. Bad education I guess. But why would he be educated? He was equal to all others, and he got paid the same, so an education would just have been a waste.

I don't know how many of you have actually witnessed communism from this close, but I was completely shocked. I have seen what a lack of competition can do to people, and I much prefer our competitive capitalist system to that, even though it may not be perfect either. It works, and the reason why it works is because it evolved that way, I think. Communism is an artificial system, which may be nice in theory, but ignores the human factor, which apparently makes the system fail in practice.
Capitalism is based on simple human concepts such as give and take, and survival of the fittest. And modern capitalism supports the unemployed, the elderly and the impaired, so I think it works okay for most people. The standards of living are the highest in the world, the working conditions are better than anywhere else, so what is the problem? It works.
Posted on 2004-05-23 08:54:52 by Scali
you confuse many things

socialism, capitalism, competition, rewards by a system....

Pure capitalism is about cutting out the bottom 9x% so you can make 10% more profit, screw the others.

Pure capitalism is about paying people minimum-wages for maximum jobs while raising the price of flour.

It's about choosing the polluting substance over the safe one because t earns you $0.04 more per product sold. To hell with nature, that's for others to deal with.

Capitalism is about making the top few rich while keeping the others entrenched in the illusion that "through hard work" they can get there too.

Capitalism may be priceless but it's us 9x people that'll be paying.
Posted on 2004-05-23 12:57:36 by Hiroshimator
"Pure capitalism" as in the theory itself, as I described it above.
You interpret it as "corrupt practical applications of capitalism".
So the one confusing things is you.
Odd, especially AFTER I pointed out the corruption.
Basically you say the same, you just mix up the terms, so you can pretend you're saying something else, and argue with me.

And if you don't like this world, don't be part of it. Ever considered suicide?
Posted on 2004-05-23 14:09:26 by Scali
hello, this *is* pure capitalism. Your form of capitalism is some kind of delusional "I can get a part of the pie" dream that everybody likes to believe.

Newsflash, you can't. You'll work your ass off for somebody else and they'll rake in the fortune, while you'll get along just good enough to have something to lose.

Pure capitalism is exactly everything for the money, it means that if I can get rich by killing other people then that's what I'll do.

Capitalism has no conscience nor does it care for others.

Realistically neither of us live in a capitalistic country so we're a bit better off, given our social security status but that should not stop you or me from seeing the truth behind money: it's fueled by the sweat of the exploited and its importance is too high.

Capitalism is what'll cause you to be ruled by a boss that's only half as smart as you are while he'll take away the glory and reap the rewards.
Posted on 2004-05-23 16:08:39 by Hiroshimator
I used the "pure capitalism" term first, and you try to redefine the meaning of it, so that you can argue.
I am not talking about "pure capitalism" in the sense that you mean, and it is useless to argue about that. Read my post before you make some kind of emotional hangup argument about capitalism.
Posted on 2004-05-23 16:30:01 by Scali
Scali, I live capitalism everyday and Hiroshimator's explaination is the correct reality. You are not thinking very deeply about the consequences of what you type. How to avoid the coruption in "pure capitalism"?
Posted on 2004-05-23 19:48:31 by bitRAKE
Well Scalli

Please excuse if i have hurt your feelings with that sentence

I was justa assuming that you love and like capitalismus (or your own way of seeing it) and in this regard you are the kind of man that will rule under capitalistic laws/organization... The kind of man that thinks he is better than others and in this regard it is only normal to be rewarded more..as an incentive and a way to keep the good things happen... I do not hink i was wrong since from your article and posts it results this way.

Indeed in absolute truth that is an very low level of understanding, but it looks like honey and milk to you and i respect your option/oppinion ;) . I would give my life for your right to think like this ... and unless you can understand the truth yourself...indeed nothing can be done.

However suggesting that Hiro should consider suicide...
Hmmm... well it just shows your capitalistic ways too good.

But les us put emotions aside and talk loggically

Indeed You are both right in a way : pure capitalismus and pure comunismus have never been inplemented we are curently livin in a blended mixture of the two concepts.

I will start with your experience about communismus.

I have a huge advantage here over you since i have lived a big part of my life in a comunist country.... and then i have become a capitalistic antrepeneour :D and unfortunately for you... you have done non of those things so far...

About comunismus in "ex-communist countrys:

Is has never been comunismus in the first place. It was just a tiranic rule pe a samll number of hummans that mimic the comunist ideas a little... but they have stopped at 10% comunismus everywhere... so that is why you have noticed that.

1)The only thing that they somehow implemented was the equal income (and safety for everybody). However this was not really equal, there have been variations in the range of 1:5 from the lowest income to the greatest income. For your comparation Sweeden now has a rate of about 1:2 or 1:3 and the have one of the best living standards and technology in this world.

So this was implemented wery badly and that is about all that they did (of course besides propaganda).

Even so poorly implemented, i did NOT have to fight you on my work to get a higher income
so competition was a little bit moderated here but just a little bit. A lot o peoples started to have passions for special intelectual things like arts, computers... I for example have been doing y own OS on 8 bits CPU at that time ;) we started to read a lot of good literature and debate intelectual ideas, thinke da bout going to stars etc... Of course this was true for the young inteligent people that have lived the whole lifes under comunismus :P .

Just about the time that this youn new kind of hummans (:P like me) would have reached to switch power with the old comunist ones... well the comunismus has fall ;) so i was never 1 full comunist generation there after all

2) The wanted to kill private property but failed miserably, initially killing many peasants just to take their land... after a while they stopped and decided that "some" parts of the country can keep thei private property (mountains and hills)

In citys the allowed each people / family to have ONE personal private owned house and one or two cars and one house in the country...and ,,you get the point... pathetically missing the idea

This mad for double standards: one could have private house and the rest "owned" a huse offeren to them for the time of their life...and that thy could pass to childrens... yet another mistake in away

On the bright side : almost everybody was given a house and and after some time he could get a car... this generated a funny situation after the fall on comunismus...almost everybody (old enough i mean) owns its own private property house :P

3)The did NOT stop competition.

In fact the schools organized olimpics and contests and there was preached a fight for hetting the best marks on all matters science or arts, This generated competition and badly educated childrens... it took a special kind of humman to be able to avoid competition that was inoculated into your little barain as a child...

Of course only and error of the nature (like me) was able to keep this out of his/her mind
but the was majority could not

4)They did NOT reduced the population

In fact there was a law that forced womans to bear as many childrens as possible and awarded the distinctions for doing so :( damn stupid... preaty much like some religions do today

This i fact added presure for economics resources beyond the capabilities of the countrys

Even under such situations we have been only 1-2 steeps behind capiatlistic countrys
(aka when you have had 386 we did have 286 CPU and so on) and yeah we did have to write code in ASM most of the times just to compensate hardware :D

So to conclude IT WAS NOT COMUNISM but a tiranic rula that has had a parfume of comunism and a lot of propaganda claiming it was comunism...

To close this up let me explain what you have briefly seen in the countrys you have visited:

First it was not the lack of competition that did this to hummans it was the LIES that the recognised just too easy... i mean teach them competition in scholl and then preach against it at work but still not completly against it

The slow motion you have witnessed is nothing wrong...

You are oving fast? want your coffe in 10s and drink it in 2s then rush to job not to be late... well have a nice running fast life... Where do you really go? What is the purpose of your life? Why are you running?

let me explain you why: because you must be an efficient robot and an well behaved and working fast robot... there is no other reason for living on the fast lane. You need fast lane: design a ROBOT i bet it will be faster that you :P

Hummans are not fast by nature (no talking martial arts here... since i am a master of that also)
Hummans are not designed to be eficient robots. Instead humans are able to think, meditate and contemplate Universe. yes the are able to design robots that should do the work for them...

Unfortunately it so happend that curently the most cheap robot is a humman beeing in capitalismus, and using the "right" incentive you can make everyone believe that he "rocks" and he/she will be the master someday... yeah it is even "possible to happen" it just has to close an eye now an then...

The advancement of capiatlistic countrys i purely because they are rich And they are rich ONLY because they steal from other countrys: see Iraq, see US with natives americans, see Invincible Armanda and Spanish conquests, see British Empires, see Australis and natives, see Frencs and it colonial Empire see see see if you ave eyes to see i mean

Not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki here one "bright" example of capitalismus rules and civilization

Want to talk depleted uranium in Yougoslavia and Iraq? bacause economically speaking we had to put it somewhere did we not? 4.3billions of years for halfing time ... sounds familiar?

Maybe hyman race will not exist anymore...but aliens landing here form a far star will know for sure that it was a capitalistic organization... who else would be that stupid after all?

Without thie faked comunismus my country for example could have never reached close to your level of technological evolution... we have advanced our country lot during thise years...and this is a sad fact: ANY (even tiranic or faked) organization is faster and better that capitalismus and it gives fater evolution rates... SAD but true... this is why such "revolutions" and tyrans always emerge... because otherwise it will be perpetual poverty for them... under the rules of capitalismus of course...

You say that comunismus is good only in theory but in practice humman factor will make it fail.
Of course you are right... because small kids are told and preached capitalismus from kindergarden up to school, anf University...what do you exect?

Yes capitalismus has "evolved"...it is evolution ZERO (NADA, NOTHING) : just do what animals naturally do and add some RULES/LAWS to make it bearable

After all even IF i am older that you i am better at martial arts that you. and i shoot better with an AKM, so you do not want me to come over you and explain you that since i have those competitive advantages over you ... you should work as a slave for me?

NO i am sure you do not! So we need a complex set of rules and laws to make this bearable.
Unfortunately no set of rules will ever make up for humman greed and this is why you will always have crimes and terorismus and slavery and all the good things in life...

Now about you beloved capitalismus

Looks like Hiroshmator has been there :D,
While i suspect that you are just a student and do not work every day for your living (but i might be wrong here)

Anyway i am better equiped to talk about capitalismus when compared to you since i have practiced it since 1990. I own my company of software (actaully i have owned or beeing and action holder in many companys) and i have given peoples a slary every month :P

So i know that it is slavery ;)

Pointing out the coruption has nothing to do with it. Since it is the capitalismus that generates coruption by itself after all. BAsically any hierarhical (pyramidal) system generates coruption.

What is capitalismus after all?
(to be continued)

Enough of this, as i ahve told you i will expose my concepts in an article on the internet someday
Posted on 2004-05-23 19:59:07 by BogdanOntanu
Word and Object. A nice catch phrase but also a useful distinction for the definitions of political systems. Compare some of the old Eastern Block countries that had Governments that claimed to be Communist yet behind the facade they functioned as a small minority that controlled the vast majority. Like wise look at the range of Western countries that claim to be free enterprise democracies and behind the facade you have corporate structures in bed with government where a small minority control the vast majority.

The differences between these two supposedly competing systems is the facade, not the content. In a western society you are free to starve, in some of the old communist systems, you were free to support the facade or free to end up in a labour camp.

The real distinction is the application of the "control model" by governments of entirely different external appearances. Whether left, centre or right, the factor in common is extended levels of control over members of the societies they are in charge of. One of the less attractive aspects of globalism is the averaging of political systems across many countries so that methods used in places that were once considered to be human rights abuses are starting to become commonplace.

Progressively the emphasis is "Do as you are told", not "excercise your rights" and this does seem to be a one way trip around the world at the moment by governments of many different pursuations. As long as media at an international level remains in bed with the corporate sector at an international level, the shift will continue further towards more totalitarian societies.
Posted on 2004-05-23 20:25:56 by hutch--
So let us continue

What is capitalismus after all?

It is an "evolved" form of slaver of course... but the esential advantage it has it that people do not clearly understand this. In fact every single humman hopes that he will somehow succeed ;) and this hope makes then close the eyes.

So we must explain the myths of capitalismus, because this is the way people uderstand it (eve if wrongly)

1)Survival of the fitest

Let us make an example with Scali: "Scali goes to work."

He has learned all his life in Schools and University and he wants to be the best professional programmer.

As a side track here let us understand that is Scali's parents would have not had the money needed for Scali to learn or to get him a PC or to sustain him while he was young...

Well Scali could have NOT doen none of those, imagine Scali in Romania having to live with a salary of 100$ per month (like i do now) ... ?

Just change the country a little and the initial conditions and you will see how this myth will fall...
But doh let us assume all was ok, and his parents did have enough money (we will get to how d they did obtain that money a little later)

So he goes to work, and he makes some very good programs.
Well he makes a decent income let us say 1000$ per month.

But surprise: his boss/manager makes 10.000$ per mony and he/she knows 1/10 or the programming art of Scali .... ?

Maybe the boss wastes all him money on naked girls (like me) BUT if he was fair and used up his money corectly... then there is no WAY in UNIVERSE that SCali will ever catch up with his BOSS

So "survial of the fitest" has died of a sudden death.

Since it is obviouse that Scali is more fited for doing programming that his boss...maybe Scali should be the boss? Unfortunatley the general answer in capitalismus is NO!

Now there will be debate that the boss has another range/area of "FIT", he makes "management" and it is superior to Scali at this issue....

Hmmm so be it, but then Scali has choosen the wrong job... maybe he should have been a manager and not a programmer

So goes off geniouse and internal sparkles... even if Scali would bring its best contribution to this world as a programmer he might have to adapt and transform himself into an MANAGER :P

Besides even IF he chooses to become a manager, what talents does he have for this?

Yes he can learn, but deep down in his soul he will always be a programmer, to hell maybe his current manager is deep down into it's soul a programmer (this will justify for his 10% programming skills becaus etalents never get away no matter how low you exercise them)

So he will make a poor manager and even so there will always be some manager on top of him, that will have a greater income and usually lower skills (ouch under this circumstances maybe not?)
and still Scali will not be able to jump over him

So what is Scali going to do?

Well for one thing he will become frustrated. Either he will stay as a programmer and always be frustrated that the managers get more income that he gets, or he will try to adapt and orient himself to what brings more income... but he will not make programms any more

Frustration both ways. And frustration makes violence.

So one day Scali will make a smart ass remark toward one of its "colegues" that earn more mony... let us say the manager will hear it :P (doesent Scali do this here? so i think it is plausible)

Let us remember that the manager is eventually himself frustrated (because he wanted to be a programmer) and he will take the smart ass remark very badly and will start making the life very hard for this new "smart" programmer...

Scali has to go to work every day and he has to see the boss every day and the bass has all the power to make Scali miserable (under the law of course, only a stupid manager will make something that scali could retaliate back under the law)

AND you know you can not cahnge IP or screen name like in webboards when you go to work ;)

Sooner of later Scali will have to resign or he will become more and more frustrated and his life will be miserable...

Survival of the fitest they say...eh?

Maybe we have lloked all all this from the wrong direction or thru a distorted looking glass...
Maybe the fitest was the incompetent programmer in the posture of a manager...

How come?

Well, because in capitalismus FITESTS means the ONE that has a greater income or greater money accumulated... for HIM everything is possible while for OTHERS that do not FIT well NOTHING is possible...

So finnaly we have understood something: under capitalistic rules the FITSETS is the guy that owns more MONEY not the one with greater skills in what so ever. Usually the one with greater skills is just a slave worker for the first...

The only skills you need are the skills that make money, all other skills are irelevant or so to say relevant only for slaves.

And how can one make money?

1)Well killing or stealing from somebody that already has them is the easy way.. oh no there is a law that prevents us from doing this...hmmm
2)Or we could invade an oil producing country... oh no there used to be a law against this but not anymore :P
3)Or we could make Exxon
4)Or we cold seel something that costs 0.1$ for the price of 1$ to a lot of poor people, wow 10:1 profit margin...and this is legal ;) and all the stupid poor bastards will actually work for us as slaves.
5)Or we could keep the banana price low and import those and in exchange export some overpriced PCs and software ...they will have to upgrade soon anyway...
6)Or we could produce clothing in Romania at 1:10 price and sell them as high fashion in West at 100x price

(add inovative methods here)

I am sure everybody could find many more ways to get money and INCENTIVES
but honestly it is all just a method of killing and stealing in such a way that it will NOT break the laws and RULES...

Under capitalistic rules it is stupid to share, it is stupid to help, and hell even to share information here on this board.... but you know hummans can not help understnading tha capitalismus is deeply wrong... so instinctively they try to minimise its efects at least a little

To do this fully constient is another issue thought
Posted on 2004-05-23 21:05:36 by BogdanOntanu
hutch--, although the high-level control mechanisms appear different on the surface, you explain how they were really the same to the people. Might this be because the people are ultimately the same and when under control they respond similarly?
Posted on 2004-05-23 21:27:38 by bitRAKE
Yes Hutch

This i true and it will happen ...there is nothig we can do to prevent it...

Maybe it is a good thing because if we make all people see and understand what reality is... maybe when we will be able to change things (if ever) we will only change ALL of the world...

If multiple contrys exist and we will change on then other countrys might oppose :D
But it has its dark side also since a totalitarian rgime is no much more easy to impose globally...

Besides in so called comunismus in Eastern Block everybody knowed that it was a LIE, while in capitalismus everybody THINKS that yes there might be some problems but it is basically FAIR... so you see captalismus LIES a LOT BETTER and this makes evolution impossible...

Indeed we are heading towards a global rule where everybody will use Windows ;)
(like me :P)
Posted on 2004-05-23 21:40:17 by BogdanOntanu
considering human nature... and please do keep (my view of, *cough*) human nature in mind, I am certainly against communism, socialism, and left-wing thinking in general. It plain doesn't work. I don't *like* capitalism as such, and I think socialism is a wonderful pipe-dream - but at least capitalism works (even if wrecking a lot of people).

I prefer something like denmark's sorta-capitalism with socalist elements. We help the poor, take care of the weak, etc. Works pretty well in reality. And even a pure-breed capitalist society would do best in helping the weak, it's cheaper in the long run ;)
Posted on 2004-05-23 21:42:00 by f0dder

Indeed we are heading towards a global rule where everybody will use Windows ;)
Let me predict the future: Microsoft will be made a public utility in this country.
Posted on 2004-05-23 21:45:27 by bitRAKE

I am more inclined to think that those who can control others will control others to their own advantage and much of what is heard is PR style justification to cover it up. Advantage comes to the few at the expense of the many in terms of power, money, living standards, mobility and control of their own lives.

There are very good models that have been available over time that used to fit into the set of definitions of a "Free Western Democracy". Lasseiz Fair capitalism where different people had different expertises that they sold on the basis of demand. Then you had the balance of competition to ensure that the end purchaser could choose on the basis of quality or price or any other criterion they wanted.

What kept this economic engine going was the freedom to compete in whatever way worked but without some basic controls, the process can be pereverted into something else that only pays lip service to the trappings of capitalism and free enterprise. the mechanisms are many, lobby government to create and apply regulations that distort the market to the interests of one party over another and you end up wityh a monopoly.

Fail to control business practices so you end up with market control based strategies and the net loser is competition so consumers pay more for less to fuel corporate profits for a narrower few.

The semantics of COMMUNE and CORPORATE collapse back into the same mechanism, economic collectivism or in the more popular terminology, COMMUNISM. Behind the facade of corporate free enterprise and competition is the same mechanism that fueled the old Politbureaus of the communist world, put up a front, control the majority and rake the profits.
Posted on 2004-05-23 22:02:47 by hutch--
bitrake, it is simple:

From chidhood we are learned this way:
Childrens are under total control of:
-parents while they are very small,
-teachers in schood and university
-boss/manager at work

So we are educated to be slaves, and we can not escape because we have to pay our bills,
But we also have the "model" of a slave master to follow:parent,teacher,manager.. so we hope that one day ...

Some guys escape: the ones that have success under capitalistic rules, but infortunately in order to have succes you have to think in master/slaves terms and there is always a bigger fish above you no matter what...

So while you are a slave master yourself you are also a slave for smebody of something (institutions)

This way "control" is never loosed

It all starts with the education, and during a transition phase until a few new "educated" generations appear there is nothing that can be done...

besides intelectually understanding it and making an atempt to ease the rules by giving each one the freedom from bills and work
Posted on 2004-05-23 22:13:20 by BogdanOntanu