[BUNDY BROS] CALL TO ARMS / MILTIA EVENT / GO-BAG
- Thread starter naptown
- Start date
The BSD license allowed free access to the BSD code and allowed for the binary redistribution of code unencumbered by the original copyright. this had the effect of allowing companies to appropriate the code base, modify it, and resell it as their own product without contributing the source back to the community. this pretty much resulted in the death of BSD. OSX is based on BSD. Some embedded systems are also based on BSD. the problem is that this allowed companies to take was was public and privatize it, effectively killing the community. BSD hasn't had a public release since 1996.
while this sounds like a case of the commons being tragically exploited to the point that it gets destroyed that's not actually the case. it's more akin to what was public being privatized and exploited for private profit while what was public gets neglected. BSD code is alive and well within OSX, but you're not allowed to have the source.
on the other hand the GPL license forces people to contribute their code back to the community and public if they wish to distribute that code. this has lead to linux and other GPL code taking over the server space. the fact that it's forced to be public and part of the commons is why linux is winning.
while this sounds like a case of the commons being tragically exploited to the point that it gets destroyed that's not actually the case. it's more akin to what was public being privatized and exploited for private profit while what was public gets neglected. BSD code is alive and well within OSX, but you're not allowed to have the source.
on the other hand the GPL license forces people to contribute their code back to the community and public if they wish to distribute that code. this has lead to linux and other GPL code taking over the server space. the fact that it's forced to be public and part of the commons is why linux is winning.
anti-commons are not commons.
and regulatory/copyright mechanisms like GPL deal quite nicely with the risk of the rather simplistic tragedy of the commons scenario.
lloyd died in 1852 and the whole tragedy of the commons thing was published in 1833. know what they didn't have in 1833? computers. know what else? electricity.
and regulatory/copyright mechanisms like GPL deal quite nicely with the risk of the rather simplistic tragedy of the commons scenario.
lloyd died in 1852 and the whole tragedy of the commons thing was published in 1833. know what they didn't have in 1833? computers. know what else? electricity.
people no longer value shakespeare because it's in the public domain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_based_on_works_by_William_Shakespeare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_based_on_works_by_William_Shakespeare
Is your mountain bike carbon?
I'm thinking of switching over but I can't really justify it because I only ride recreationally. I have a Marin Team Titanium now.
One one hand it's like yolo but on the other-- only douchebags drop 8.5K on a mountain bicycle they will never race. Help me pls k thx
What is up? Did a liberal cut you off or something on your way to work.
my mountain bike is reynolds 853 steel
my cyclocross bike is all carbon
both around 4K builds
when you're talking about medicine you're talking about two different things: FDA regulations and patent law. GPL deals with copyright, not patents.
patents are complicated. or rather, patent law is fucked and the patent office is lazy. however, this is a bigger problem for software, not necessarily for medicine. it does get a little stupid with drug companies when they can patent naturally occurring molecules or genes...that's as stupid as software patents.
do I think drug companies charge way too much to US residents? yes. is that because the patent duration is 17 years? probably not...that probably has more to do with the fractured nature of US health insurance and FDA regulation. if medicare could negotiate for drug prices they'd be much lower.
17 years for the exclusive ownership of a novel, non-obvious, non-natural idea is not a bad thing, especially when drug approval can take ten years. once that patent expires anyone can use it, but they can't necessarily modify it slightly and get a new patent. in that way it's kinda like the GPL...kinda.
one of the interesting things about the daraprim case is that it's not under patent protection, just FDA regulatory protection...which is why that compounding pharmacy in san diego was about to make the same drug for significantly less. no patent protection meant no way to stop them.
patents are complicated. or rather, patent law is fucked and the patent office is lazy. however, this is a bigger problem for software, not necessarily for medicine. it does get a little stupid with drug companies when they can patent naturally occurring molecules or genes...that's as stupid as software patents.
do I think drug companies charge way too much to US residents? yes. is that because the patent duration is 17 years? probably not...that probably has more to do with the fractured nature of US health insurance and FDA regulation. if medicare could negotiate for drug prices they'd be much lower.
17 years for the exclusive ownership of a novel, non-obvious, non-natural idea is not a bad thing, especially when drug approval can take ten years. once that patent expires anyone can use it, but they can't necessarily modify it slightly and get a new patent. in that way it's kinda like the GPL...kinda.
one of the interesting things about the daraprim case is that it's not under patent protection, just FDA regulatory protection...which is why that compounding pharmacy in san diego was about to make the same drug for significantly less. no patent protection meant no way to stop them.
Alright, glad you finally gave it a shot. Thanks.
Here's how I look at vanster's initial question:
http://www.tribalwar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=18513147#post18513147
Ok, so with this question, vanster sets up a paradigm that is supposed to trap you into answering either yes or no. At least, that’s how it comes off given it is all “any and all” and appears an off-shoot of LouCy’s retarded argument at the top of pg. 35. Only vanster knows what his real intent was and I am sure he will twist his way out of it.
Instead, I look at it this way: intellectual property is still private Property; there is no difference to me. Either I own it or I don’t. Once you comprehend that even libertarians do favor some form of limited gvt, then you understand that it is the gvt’s job to protect Property rights –it is a Human Right.
What you were to glean from Tragedy of the Commons is that you cannot have private property as it has been abolished and socialized that leaves everyone poorer off and authority of property rights given to the State instead of the individual. Learn more here: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PropertyRights.html
So why would anyone reject protection of their private property since it is the gvt’s responsibility to protect the Individual’s Rights? It’s an incredibly stupid question as per my reply:
http://www.tribalwar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=18513177#post18513177If you actually understood property Rights, you wouldn't have to ask that question.
Now do you understand?
Kerosene31
Veteran XV
What about voter ID? What about Ted Cruz's birth certificate? Was he born? His name sounds funny. He has a Mexican name but came from Canada? The fook?
prob not on that slavery thing, founding fathers were cocksuckers on that issue
We're not talking about slavery, now are we?
This is clearly about vanster's inability to grasp the concept of property Rights.
Trying to change the subject won't save him.
We're not talking about slavery, now are we?
This is clearly about vanster's inability to grasp the concept of property Rights.
Trying to change the subject won't save him.
still talkin about property
that time the founding fathers were fucking 100% wrong about something being property
when they thought they had the right to own a person
That's a red herring.
Nobody is saying slavery is right or just, unless you're racist.
We are discussing the philosophical values and principles of property Rights.
You really dont get it, do you? This is clearly about WHO has authority over property, the individual or the state. Not about WHAT they own.
That's a red herring.
Nobody is saying slavery is right or just, unless you're racist.
We are discussing the philosophical values and principles of property Rights.
You really dont get it, do you? This is clearly about WHO has authority over property, the individual or the state. Not about WHAT they own.
If something has been miss-identified as property (such as people, or DNA sequences, or a dropdown menu in mobile software), it doesn't matter WHO thinks they own it.
At one point in several cultures, wives were seen as property as well.
In this society, the founding fathers were not on the correct side of the legal/moral/philosophical values on that issue, and why would we expect to seek their approval on property rights issues?