/tech/ - Technology★

Tesla would have won

>>872765 (OP)

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.

>>872765 (OP)

>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.

>>872782

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

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.

>>872813

based Laozi

>>872793

>Everyone will be forced to licence their stuff as GPLv3.

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).

>>872831

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

>>872832

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

>>872837

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.

>>872837

You have been brainwashed by Google.

>>872852

>implying girls can't code with squiggles

you are a sexist shitlord you know that

>>872782

>only they would be selling assets, not the engine or game code

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.

>>872852

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

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.

>>872924

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.

>>872951

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

>>872945

>Software is a work of practical function, it's not a opinion of personal expression.

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.

>>872985

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

>>872786

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

>>872934

>There would also be mandated warning signs on proprietary software like they put on cigarettes

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.

>>872773

this

>>872765 (OP)

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

>>872996

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.

>>873164

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-234

>>873167

>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."

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.

>>873233

>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 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.

>>873233

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.

>>872838

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

>>872850

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

>>873164

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

>>873256

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

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.

>>873260

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.

>>873260

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

>>873269

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.

>>873261

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

>>873272

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.

>>873286

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.

>>873286

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 anon it was pretty much completely usable without javascript.

>>873168

Oh wow, Thanks anon!

>>873276

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

>>873286

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.

>>873306

>If it's a matter of the messenger scaring the audience, the fix is changing to a market friendly messenger

>>872765 (OP)

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.

>>873292

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".

>>873289

>>873353

>>873945

>'digital good'

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

>>873356

Is normal conversation also too fast for you?

you autist.

>>873945

>What the FS movement should do instead is push the idea from a consumer rights perspective: software is a tool that should work in benefit of the user, not against them, and that the user of a program should be able to see how it works, fix it, replicate it, and change it to suit their own needs (just like a real tool like a drill or w/e). Anything short of that is getting cheated by the software vendor.

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.

>>872945

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

>>880492

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.

>>880497

> we we we we we

Stop with this group voice shit.

>>873635

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

>>880497

>hire us to write that software.

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

>>880496

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

>>880498

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.

>>880500

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.

>>873239

>free software cannot be sold for a profit.

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.

>>880505

>I am a voice speaking for the cause

You're more cultish and creepy than a macfag.

>>880497

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

>>880505

> I as the copyright holder

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.

>>880510

Thanks for your opinion

>>880509

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.

>>880513

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.

>>880515

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)))

>>880519

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.

>>880521

>If the project is GPL, I'd probably quote the cost of development

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

>>880522

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.

>>880523

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.

>>880524

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.

>>880525

You completely avoided answering those questions.

>>880525

>can easily transfer his skills working for competitor companies

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

>>880526

I'm answering what I understand of your questions. Here is what I understand:

Why does my employer hire me for my programming skills?

>with the right to potentially enrich their competitors

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

>>880528

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.

>>880528

> employees are free to change employers

See >>880527. 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.

>>880529

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

>>880531

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

>>880531

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.

>>880529

>why would a company put themselves in a position which allows you to subjugate them

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.

>you (or your team) may charge me $250,000 and then sell it to my top competitor for $5,000.

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.

>>880533

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

>The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about.

>>880533

> drawing you a plan for $250,000 and selling it

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.

>>880535

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.

>>880535

*precede => proceed

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

>>880537

>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.

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.

>>880539

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