Of course this world is fucked

What would a perfect, non-fucked technology world look like to you and how would it operate? Of course all software would be open source and well documented, but how would everything be from the ground to the upper echelons of society? Without """The Cloud (tm)(r)""" or bullshit ISP restrictions how would you operate on the move? How would money work? How would we communicate with loved ones? How different would things really be?

Attached: DeleteNOW.jpg (1417x920, 1.02M)

Other urls found in this thread:


Tesla would have won

Software patents wouldn't exist.
People who work in software would mostly work customizing software/adding features for specific needs. Pretty much what they already do if they work for a company that does something other than software.
Video games would still be a business, only they would be selling assets, not the engine or game code. DRM would be impossible. The modding scene would be fucking incredible.
I don't really see a change in communication. We would still have chat rooms, SMS, email, VOIP, and so on. They would just be open source.

If it's software then only libre/free software that respects my freedom will be allowed to execute on my system by default.

Why do you need to contact people while on the move? You should establish protocols about where and when to communicate. You establish plans and windows of engagement.

I would make long distance internet connections very expensive. This would make it so there were more exclusive free software that most people wouldn't have access to. Imagine visiting somewhere else in the country and they mostly all use some slick window manager. Once seeing it, you pay for a copy on a floppy and bring it back home after your trip to install on your machine and to show off to your buddies.
Producing custom SoCs in this world would also be extremely cheap and allow for very low volume orders.

this too except with most of the communication services not existing.You really only need email, irc, and message boards.

Everyone will be forced to licence their stuff as GPLv3. Everything will be done with calculation in kind using GLPK and allocated correctly. This system needs feedback to determine the needs of every human so direct democracy is essential for proper functioning of the system.
Everyone will be free to link their systems up to the municipal network without silly things like private property hindering one from connecting to a node. Just invest in time and labour for making your own network.

Attached: 46cadfa116cf687254ca767129e8d4928573c7d7329ad4dd4ea62d736c08194f.jpg (1023x684, 169.59K)

Though there are machines that can work ten to a hundred times faster
than man, they are not needed.
The people take death seriously and do not travel far.
Though they have boats and carriages, no on uses them.
Though they have armor and weapons, no one displays them.
Men return to the knotting of rope in place of writing.
Their food is plain and good, their clothes fine but simple,
their homes secure;
They are happy in their ways.
Though they live within sight of their neighbors,
And crowing cocks and barking dogs are heard across the way,
Yet they leave each other in peace while they grow old and die.

based Laozi

Stopped reading there. If you want software to be trully free and not crippled then either use MPL or we need something new (and better).

GPLv3 ensures all users have their essential freedoms in software. There's nothing crippled about using this license.

GPLv3 is the Turner Diaries of Open Source Licenses. It is not getting things done.

What did you mean by this?

Let's not derail and argue about licenses. OP already said that everything was open source as in free software.

You have been brainwashed by Google.



Attached: 1756498191964.png (200x200, 41.68K)

you are a sexist shitlord you know that

And basically anyone who is interested in writing engines for money is fucked, because their code cannot be sold. This is why GPL shouldn't be forced on everyone- it denies developers the ability to own their code. If your product is just code, you can't sell it or own it, it belongs to (((everybody))) now.

Why is a work of art and music reserved and owned by its creator, but not code? If we applied the GPL idea to art, then artists would have no intellectual property rights to their art, and anyone would be able to sell anyone else's art. Yet, only software gets this treatment. Why?

This isn't really a comment about whether you can read the code or not- it's about how FOSS denies ownership of the code. You can still own the code you write while letting others read it.

Most artists can't program and most programmers can't draw.

Kobayashi-san programs at her wagecuck job.

Attached: 789bb2_6326366.jpg (650x366 189.18 KB, 3.72M)

Soft- and Hardware that does not Respect Your Freedoms would be highly taxed in order to discourage businessmen from abusing the user. Anything under GPLv3 would be freed from this and the money collected from proprietary software would be put into the development of Free Software. Similarly Service as a software substitute would be regulated such that it would stop being more profitable than local software. There would also be mandated warning signs on proprietary software like they put on cigarettes.

Well there's no such thing as perfection, but at the very least it should be possible to have non-botnet computers (none of this Windows 10 spyware and Intel ME related crap), and protocols that are open enough that you can actually use "any browser" to access websites. If sites were designed in a sane manner, it would actually be possible to it adapt to the user's needs. Instead it works the other way around: the user has to constantly adapt to whatever crap silicon valley idiots are pushing in $CURRENT_YEAR. It's all backwards and retarded. But that also applies to OS and general software design as well. This is really the dark ages of computers, when big companies push their shit around to fuck the users while spying on them constantly.

Software is a work of practical function, it's not a opinion of personal expression. Works of practical function reduce their meaning when the function is different to the needs of the user. Therefore in order to be meaningful, the work of practical function ought to be updated to better match the requirements of the user. In the case of software, when users are forbidden to access the source code of the software, the user is being controlled by the software. This control of users is a form of social injustice and it should not be tolerated in a society who values their freedom. This is the reason why people who believe that freedom is important should always avoid installing proprietary software onto their own computer.

In the perfect world the internet isn't under mainstream usage, and is run by users through some kind of p2p piratebox network or something.

Attached: 00bf56f452adeb05d0713fc9749f898c33797e3351066b4fd54bdc0a2a3f969e.jpg (1280x1261, 151.94K)

we already have

Attached: os2_warp_3.png (640x481, 8.62K)

They couldn't even make an a-bomb, so fuck their shit.

That's totally wrong... it's every bit a part of personal expression as a painting is. Also as I have explained, I don't think that programs have anything to hide, so I do believe in letting users read the code. I just don't believe that users need to have ownership of the code because it totally denies the creator of code ownership and profit from their code.

The world withoout electricity.

You can't even make a child so why should you be of any help?

I would agree with you if it didn't sound like you were planning a military operation.

I like this.

An omnipotent AI would rule the humanity, equipped with moral standards and a value of life, it would ensure and maintain the ultimate justice within the society.

We would we able to browse the network of information withing the borders of augmented reality. We could extract any information out of our brain and share it with the world or visa versa.

Internet would be just computers connected with quantum entanglement. This would not only allow immediate access to all information humanity ever produced, it would also push the society towards the direction of singularity.

Money wouldn't exist because all goods would be produced by previously mentioned AI. People would neither need to starve on the streets, nor spend their youth studying just to get some nickels.


germany was literally making one but the allies stole the resources from norway to stall the project

Attached: 15325631566.jpg (385x720, 25.72K)

All jews in tech would be gassed just like the ones outside of tech.

I'm certain they just sunk the
Heavy water ferrys, not stole it.

Attached: 66a7a047edf957d032a36fb0d52a8c791b2c3ff8bac4dc6bc557f1c70a7f3453 (1).jpg (320x240 113.19 KB, 1.45M)

Software is an example of a practical, functional work. You use it do to a job. The main purpose of a program is not that people will read the code and think, "boy, how fascinating, what a great job they did." The main purpose of software is, you run it and it does something. And yes, those people who are interested in software will also read it and learn, but that's not the main purpose. It's interesting because of the job it will do, not just because of how nice it is to read. Whereas with art, the main use of art is the sensation that you get when you look at it or listen to it. So these are very different ways of being used and, as a result, the ethical issues about copying and modification are different.

Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this easier for all of us. Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives software programs “owners”, most of whom aim to withhold software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we use.

Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone else—or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are expected to ignore this discrepancy.)

To those who propose this as an ethical axiom—the author is more important than you—I can only say that I, a software author myself, call it bunk. People have been told that natural rights for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our society.

As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US Constitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only permits a system of copyright and does not require one; that's why it says that copyright must be temporary. It also states that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress—not to reward authors. Copyright does reward authors somewhat, and publishers more, but that is intended as a means of modifying their behavior.

Uranium was stolen from a German submarine headed to Japan and subsequently used for the bombs that were then dropped on Japan.


Unless its a demo, in which they will do exactly that- you can't fit programming into one tiny box to suit your argument. Some software is function, like your IRC client, and some is for entertainment, like a video game. So why should the video game artist be able to demand to be compensated for their work, while the video game programmer should be forced to give up all ownership of their work?

The usage of something doesn't affect the basic concept of copyright- that you worked on something, and therefore, only you should be able to sell it. There is no ethical difference between using someones art in a commercial way that benefits you, without permission, then there is with using someones software in a commercial way that benefits you, without permission.

The artist won't be able to sell his assets unless there is an engine to do so. The artist will pay the programmer to create an engine he can use his assets with. If this is a company, they still need to have someone work on the engine so they can use all the assets they are making.

The nature of a demo scene program is still a computer program, it is a piece of practical functional work. The fact that it is also simultaneously a work of art does not change its nature as software and a piece of functional work. If that software is running on the user's computer, then it is morally imperative that it respects the user's freedom. The software of computer games are equally software and are equally subject to the ethical consideration of all computer software. If you don't want people to share the software you write, then it is better to never distribute it at all so nobody apart from yourself will ever keep a copy.

You also misunderstand the purpose of Copyright. Under the US Constitution, copyright exists to benefit users—those who read books, listen to music, watch movies, or run software—not for the sake of publishers or authors. Do not make the mistake that Copyright is supposed to benefit the copyright holders.

My final point is that you are imagining that free software cannot be sold for a profit. This is a false dichotomy.

Most people will be heavily turned off by the Free Software Movement, considering that RMS is just too insane for public view.

I like GPLv3, just saying that anyone who just sperg out in public about GPL is like dumbasses telling others to "READ SIEGE".

Both instances happened. Stole the uranium and sank the ferries.

If it's a matter of the messenger scaring the audience, the fix is changing to a market friendly messenger. I personally don't care, I believe the message is more important than the messenger.

Not a messenger problem, it is a branding problem. I would say that the Trump-esque attitude of Linus Torvalds would be perfect.
Eric S Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" has a free market toned to it compared to the emphasis of "Libre" from FSF.

It's not required by colleges and institutions but fagos and Windows are. That's the problem.

Not true in the slightest. If you are in a proper program the professors literally give zero shits about what software you run. My pajeet professor in one of my CE classes suggested both emacs and vi even though he personally uses xcode. He specifically made a point of saying that he doesn't care if you write your programs in notepad.exe as long as they work.

Branding problem of Stallman? I don't know what you mean by this.

I forgot to add that the computers in the engineering/cs labs are 50/50 windows and scientific linux, though most people use their own.

Pic related is what happens when I log into mylabsplus. It's specifically stated that my OS isn't supported normally says "linux" but I was playing with the user agent switcher earlier and many of my instructors state in the syllabus that you either need a "Mac" or "Windows" laptop. I will say that it is a step in the right direction that they've at least moved to Office365, making it easier for alternative OSes to work, but using Linux like I am would be inexcusable to an instructor if something were to happen.

The situation today is better, but it's still not where it needs to be.

Attached: Screenshot from 2018-02-21 21-17-26.png (1920x1080, 199.59K)

Why do they block you if it is a web solution?
With my school's online course system you can get by for most classes without running nonfree javascript. There's some classes which require you to run nonfree javascript in order to use the message board system.

Can't you just spoof your user agent? I mean maybe Universities are more pozzed in america, but I could get by my online courses with a default openbsd user agent. And same as the other user it was pretty much completely usable without javascript.

Oh wow, Thanks user!

Bird fucking, eating gunk on his foot, his general looks etc.

If it doesn't require Windows-specific plugins like flash or java or whatever extension, it should work fine when setting the right User Agent string. Did you try to do that?

Slower communication. I cant stand instant messaging.


All sites would be tunnelled. There would be no privacy leaks. Everything would be free software and smooth. Laptop models would be released less frequently because we wouldn't live in a savage capitalism... People from multiple areas would work together for better production of scientific novitades.

It actually works fine so long as you enable a shit ton of JS and have a somewhat mainstream browser. It's just that linux is still technically "unauthorized".

That's a complete strawman.

Attached: inane.jpg (900x675, 135.89K)

should have written 'creative work' (e.g. music, art, software, coreographies)

Is normal conversation also too fast for you?

you autist.

The fact that the only people to even talk about this ,The moral side , the logic side are considered the "worst" the "nazis" is making me angry
I keep seeing this in every aspect of life

The perfect software-Man , I would just like all the 20 yearold Windows problems to be solved
I would like the OS to tell me What is wrong and How to fix it instead of having to check for every one of trillion reasons
Just recently my brother thought the keyboard is dying,it flashed and disconnected ,First thing I did was check the cable (My brother is smart about somethings but a fucking retard when it comes to maintaining the PC&Hardware),cable was fine ,So into Google Autism Mode we go
After hours of searches the Problem was
Windows setting some fucking USB energy saving ,Had to switch that off manually for every port and keyboard was fine,In that time my brother ordered a new keyboard
Like I said , sometimes it's like the only people who know how to use computer are gamers ,actual IT and "literal" nazis
(I found that on Overwatch forum-Being a gamer saves a lot of money on tech support)

Attached: 1484257546548.png (680x762, 465.25K)

This is what we preach both explicitly and implicitly! Stallman is always advocating from the point of the user who is installing the software onto the computing machine owned by that user.

If the Stallman personality cult freetards actually spent their time writing software, instead of being "developer evangelists" perhaps people might take them more seriously.

What will you do when copyright law is abolished, thus making the GPL illegal to enforce? You won't be able to force programmers to release their modifications to your GPL code, you won't be able to force them to release code to their propietary programs.

Should it be illegal to keep your source code to yourself? or arrest a guy for not releasing the notes for his novel

We do write software. What we don't do is follow every demand that people ask of us. Generally speaking, we write what we personally want to see. Other people who have a different vision need to spend their money to hire us to write that software.

Stop with this group voice shit.

Hi metafag, didn't know you visited Zig Forums too. Hows it feel to be a rulescuck?

Spend money to hire you so you can give it away like a good little communist hippie? Fuck off would ya?

The GPL would become a matter of contract law rather than copyright law. Software distribution will happen with a paper trail of signatures.

I am a voice speaking for the cause of software freedom as defined by the free software foundation. Any person who promotes the cause that free software is the solution to proprietary software is a part of this voice.

You would be the user who paid the money for the right to distribute the software under the GPL. I as the copyright holder will have the right under copyright law to distribute the software with or without your blessing.

You can't do this reliably dick head, because some other cunt will just come along and give it away. I am so sick of fucking GPL whiners on this board. Christ almighty, every bloody thread is about ya commie license crap which doesn't even work in the real world. I want to smash you with a bat if I'm being honest.

You're more cultish and creepy than a macfag.

The person who creates a brain interface and the ability to "draw" or "create" just by thinking about something is going to crash this shit with so survivors
Just have to make sure it's not the Jews and the NSA

Not how it works mate. If I hire you, you're coding for ME. And I retain the copyright. If I commission you to paint me a picture, that's my picture and I do as I please with it after. You've got it all back to front.

Thanks for your opinion

The reason why you think it doesn't work in the real world is simply because you believe it doesn't. Sell GPL software for a profit because you want to make a profit. Don't sell it for less than a profit.

DEC, IBM, and MOS would be the major players in the processor market.

Attached: 1244920038775.jpg (286x429, 39.32K)

If you're going to own the copyright, my price will reflect that transaction. At that price, you're free to do as you wish.

So you offer a lower rate if the project is GPL? In that case you'll have a hard time eating. If you charge too much to do non-gpl, I'll just get someone else pajeet to do it. You lose either way.

Read up about JTT Computer Pawła Cisielskiego and Optimus Romana Kluski
2 tech companies that would run circles around american companies if not for fake tax evasion (((charges)))

If the project is GPL, I'd probably quote the cost of development. If I'm working as a programmer for hire with the copyright belonging to my client, my fee will be much bigger. If you choose to go to India for your software development needs, that's totally up to you. I didn't think that India supported copyright law.

You're asking people to foot the bill for software that their competitors would then potentially get for free. Great business model.

If they want to distribute the GPL software that they paid for, that's their own right under the GPL. I don't care if they do, I already got paid for my work.

So why would the initial company empower you with the right to potentially enrich their competitors? What's in it for them? You're just the gun for hire, anyone sane isn't going to allow themselves to be subjugated by you.

They hire me for my domain expertise and for my skills as programmer. This is how all employees function. A skilled employee working for a certain company can easily transfer his skills working for competitor companies. I'm not sure why programming is any different.

You completely avoided answering those questions.

That's very different from transferring a codebase they wrote at company A to company B.

I'm answering what I understand of your questions. Here is what I understand:
Why does my employer hire me for my programming skills?

I don't understand why this is relevant given the fact that employees are free to change employers after their employment contract is finished.

No, the question is why would a company put themselves in a position which allows you to subjugate them. For example, you (or your team) may charge me $250,000 and then sell it to my top competitor for $5,000.

See . They can take their skill, but they cannot take work they wrote with them. Those projects could represent many years of work, and are non-transferable.

How would you protect yourself from that anyway
Monitor their work 24/7 , what stops them from making a copy(don't bully I am not IT just outsiders take)

And about the employers skill , that a Big Question economy and Morally wise
School do just that , train you , and than you can leave and make profits for other country
There isn't really a way to prevent that other than patriotism and good country economy

Because you make contractors sign over copyright to you, and if they attempt to sell it, they're selling stolen IP.

Yes, but if you work on a project for N years, that code stays behind. You can't join a new organization and bring N years of pre-developed software with you.

This is a loaded question. I don't know how I can subjugate a company simply because they hired me to write software for them under the GPL.

Theoretically I could. What's stopping an architect from drawing you a plan for $250,000 and then selling it to your top competitor for $5,000? What about a script writer, or an industrial designer? These kinds of workers are free to keep their own copyright to their work and are equally free to help competitors.

This depends on the contract we sign. It is certainly frowned upon. But in the GPL analogy, they'd be telling me upfront that they could do this. In which case, the deal would likely not precede, because no one wants to be subjugated like that. And again, what would be in it for them to see others benefit at their expense?

The point of all this, is to attack the idea that customers are going to buy into your philosophy of selling them GPL'd code which you have the rights to.

I say this because GPL means no subjugation on the part of the user. So to conflate GPL and user subjugation has no meaning to me.

What's in it for the people who hired me is the fact that they get software that is perfect according to what they ask. It is a mistake to assume that they will be harmed if I choose to sell the same GPL software to a competitor at any price big or small.

*precede => proceed
* in it for them to see others benefit at their expense? => for me ... at my

I do not believe you'll find many people agree with you, especially if they happen to be funding the endeavour. Anyways, someone else can inherit the argument while I sleep.

Counter examples I can list include GNU, Linux, Blender, and Enlightenment desktop.