Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, Xah Lee wrote: His usual clap trap. ___ /| /| | | ||__|| | Please do | / O O\__ NOT | / \ feed the| / \ \ trolls | / _\ \ __| /|\\ \ || / | | | |\/ || / \|_|_|/ \__|| / / \|| || / | | /|| --| | | |// | --| * _| |_|_|_| | \-/ *-- _--\ _ \ // | / _ \\ _ // |/ * / \_ /- | - | | * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member . * * . * .* . . * . .* President, * . . /\ ( . . * Rite Online Inc. . . / .\ . * . .*. / * \ . . . /* o \ . Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638* '''||''' . URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ** -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
"Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As i've indicated in the Responsible Licensing article, that today's > software come with disclaimers that essentially say the producer is not > liable even if the software don't work at all. It will be hard to > change this zero responsibility stance to a 100% responsibility stance. > However, we can start in small ways. Suppose, if you write a piece of > email program, although there are a myriad scenarios that it will have > problems sending email and in reality such problem happens often, but a > responsible software programer can at least GUARANTEE, that the > software WILL work to some extent of its described utility. In the > email program example, a responsible author can say “We GUARANTEE > that this software will send out emails in a normal setting. If not, we > will refund the money you have paid, or, send you $1 USD.” Although > this may seem fuzzy and silly, but it is a start. By giving a very safe > minimal guarantee of functionality, possibly with a nominal liability > assurance, the author will have made a _Responsible License_. You have a problem of definition of the meaning of "normal setting". This problem is easily resolved with the source of the program: the source of the program IS the CONTRACT. If you respect the language (the semantics, or underlying virtual machine expected by the program), and if you respect the pre-conditions embedded in the program, then you get the guarantee plainly written in the program as post-conditions. You cannot get it more explicitely than from the sources of the program (and the specifications of its programming language). So wanting more than the mere sources, you are wanting to reject programming language not formally specified, and programs provided without the sources. We can do better on the programming language formal specifications side, but on the program sources side, I don't know what we can do more than GPL or BSD... Actually, the whole point is to let the _user_ of the program to take _responsibility_ for the program he uses, and not to cowardly discharge his (the user's) responsability to somebody else. When you compute the tip to add to your invoice at the restaurant, you don't ask the inventor of the multiplication algorithm or your teachers to take any responsibility for your wrong or right application of the operation. Let the users be responsible! -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. -- Georges W. Bush -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
Responsible Software Licensing & Free Software Foundation Xah Lee, 2005-07 Dear Programers, I have always respected the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and its community. when i wrote the article a couple years ago on Responsible Software Licensing, i thought it might not be welcomed by the free software community, because in a way responsibility is implicitly a antithesis against the free software community. I have high respect for the Free Software Foundation, even though i do not believe their tenet and dedication that ALL software MUST be “Free”. Nevertheless, i respect its founder Richard Stallman and the community on the whole. I think it is a very good group in a capitalistic software environment, as i'm also a strong advocate and believer in the goodness of laissez-faire system. So, as i was thinking that a movement towards Responsible Software Licensing may be opposed by the free software community in general, in principle and in practice. In principle because FSF's ethics focuses on the goodness of individuals, as opposed to some forced regulations such as licenses and contracts. In practice because most people in the free software camp are there because they are poor students and are totally ignorant of sociology, economics, business, law. As a class of the young, they are OpenSourcing fanatics for the thiefing and gratis and noise-making parts. In a commpercial software, where money are paid to acquire, it is reasonable to demand workability from the sold goods. However, in Free Software, almost always it is never a commercial item (i.e. practically it is always free of charge), therefore demanding that the software hold some responsibility for its consumers may seem inappropriate. We cannot stipulate warranties and insurances from gifts. (Nor can we, for some conceived ethics, to force some behavior by law, as history shows us that is not going to work well.) However, i think the free software community can in fact advocate responsible software licensing, and be a pioneer in this movement. As i've indicated in the Responsible Licensing article, that today's software come with disclaimers that essentially say the producer is not liable even if the software don't work at all. It will be hard to change this zero responsibility stance to a 100% responsibility stance. However, we can start in small ways. Suppose, if you write a piece of email program, although there are a myriad scenarios that it will have problems sending email and in reality such problem happens often, but a responsible software programer can at least GUARANTEE, that the software WILL work to some extent of its described utility. In the email program example, a responsible author can say “We GUARANTEE that this software will send out emails in a normal setting. If not, we will refund the money you have paid, or, send you $1 USD.” Although this may seem fuzzy and silly, but it is a start. By giving a very safe minimal guarantee of functionality, possibly with a nominal liability assurance, the author will have made a _Responsible License_. The Free Software Foundation's GNU project has been a pioneer in many aspects. It is a pioneer in the concept of Free Software with its GPL license, which is the main force behind the success and ubiquity of Linux and a massive collection of freely available software and components. It in fact has made a major impact in society, even beyond the realm of software industry. (for instance, the massive grass-roots online info-encyclopedia Wikipedia.org is a indirect consequence FSF and GPL) Free Software community also has done pioneering leads in software technology. For example, its emacs text editor, is a all-encompassing, self-documented, self-sustaining software, and a quality work at that. It embodies the LISP programing language, and in fact emacs is mainly responsible for spreading the quality concepts that is functional programing to most industrial programers. The GNU C Compiler (now GNU Compiler Collection), is critical in starting Linux and a massive collection of software in the unix industry. This is why i think Free Software Foundation can be a leader towards responsible software licensing. There are a huge number of Free Software followers. Many of us also publish our programs, big or small. By starting with a very small, nominal statement in the license, we can spread the attitude of responsible software. Gradually, this practice can spread to commercial software, and to such a degree of competing offers of liabilities and guarantees as we have in for example USA's consumer products. Please think about this. If you agree, please spread the idea. -- This post is archived at: http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/responsible_license_FSF.html Xah [EMAIL PROTECTED] ∑ http://xahlee.org/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 10:05:59 GMT, Roedy Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:42:52 -0800, robic0 wrote, quoted or indirectly >quoted someone who said : > >>If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it, >>then the user dumps the power to the machine and ends up having to >>reformat, thereby losing all his data, at what point does the >>liability stop? And how is fault proven or dished out? Does the >>law specifically state "repeatability" in its language? > >It would expect it to work much the way a car works. If you have an >accident, that is your fault. If the fuel pump is badly designed so it >catches fire, that in the manufacturers fault. You'ld have to prove the fuel pump caused your accident wouldn't you? I'm reversed when it comes to engineering. I always assume defects when buss loads of people are killed. If software ever guards lives that isin't certified then its a manufacturing defect. That is imbedded software though. Not the for public consumption. I know that fly-by-wire military software has 100 levels of precaution. Hey but its a 7 million dollar plane and a 700 billion dollar budget. The written requirements for a single design is a book 5 inches thick. Ever see that for Joe bullshit software designer? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:42:52 -0800, robic0 wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it, >then the user dumps the power to the machine and ends up having to >reformat, thereby losing all his data, at what point does the >liability stop? And how is fault proven or dished out? Does the >law specifically state "repeatability" in its language? It would expect it to work much the way a car works. If you have an accident, that is your fault. If the fuel pump is badly designed so it catches fire, that in the manufacturers fault. -- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Reliable software [was Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing]
robic0 wrote about software liabilities: > If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it, > then the user dumps the power to the machine and ends up having to > reformat, thereby losing all his data, at what point does the > liability stop? And how is fault proven or dished out? Does the > law specifically state "repeatability" in its language? This question is hardly unique to software. All manufacturers and suppliers have to deal with the question of what is covered by warranty. But it is possible to code defensively. For instance, instead of writing directly to the user's file, you should write to a temporary file, then when the write is complete, you rename the temp file to the "real" file. On some OSes that can be an atomic operation, but even if it is not, your danger zone where a power failure can cause the user to lose data is strongly reduced. As a general rule, closed source software suppliers have a terrible reputation for responding to bug reports quickly and in good faith. It sometimes seems that the bigger and more successful the software supplier is, the more likely they are to sit on bug reports, doing nothing to fix them, and threaten to sue if you disclose -- all the more so if it is a security exploit. Follow-ups to comp.lang.python please. -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:47:29 +0100, "Martin P. Hellwig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Xah Lee wrote: > >Nice rant, btw in most EU countries the software creator can not >withdraw the responsibility of his/her/it creation, regardless of what >the disclaimer says. Pretty big damned statement there boy! As about a coverall generalization for all faults if I ever heard! > The law is the leading authority and not some >Disclaimer/EULA, that's why most US EULA's are unauthoritative in the EU. If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it, then the user dumps the power to the machine and ends up having to reformat, thereby losing all his data, at what point does the liability stop? And how is fault proven or dished out? Does the law specifically state "repeatability" in its language? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:27:58 +, Mark Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >robic0 wrote: > >> Xah, please admit to me that your under the influence of >> physocopic drugs! > >He could be schizophrenic. > >Seekers of all things wierd on the internet can do no better than Gene >Ray's Timecube: >http://www.timecube.com/ > >His outpourings are so well known that he even gets a mention in the >wikipedia: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Ray > >And once you've fully absorbed the fact that "You are educated as a >stupid android slave to the evil Word Animal Singularity Brotherhood", >why not play the game of the theory over at: >http://atrocities.primaryerror.net/timecube.html what would Einstien do? take a trip on a beam of light -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote: > > The piece that a European programmer can never withdraw responsibility > could be a big problem to open-source software, though. I'm not sure > I'd want to freely publish anything that could result in liability for me. > Not that big of a problem, in EU a user is still primary liable for his own action unless he's deliberately been mislead without any possibility to know that, think in terms of trojans and viruses. So no suing over spilling hot coffee here unless the container it's carried in is faulty -- mph -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
Martin P. Hellwig wrote: > Xah Lee wrote: > > Nice rant, btw in most EU countries the software creator can not > withdraw the responsibility of his/her/it creation, regardless of what > the disclaimer says. The law is the leading authority and not some > Disclaimer/EULA, that's why most US EULA's are unauthoritative in the EU. Actually most EULAs are unauthoritative in both the USA and (parts of) the EU, because the customer usually doesn't know or sign the EULA before he buys the software. At least that's what I heard. The piece that a European programmer can never withdraw responsibility could be a big problem to open-source software, though. I'm not sure I'd want to freely publish anything that could result in liability for me. -- If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know. Louis Armstrong -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
Xah Lee wrote: Nice rant, btw in most EU countries the software creator can not withdraw the responsibility of his/her/it creation, regardless of what the disclaimer says. The law is the leading authority and not some Disclaimer/EULA, that's why most US EULA's are unauthoritative in the EU. -- mph -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
robic0 wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On 16 Dec 2005 16:52:43 -0800, "Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Responsible Software Licensing
>>
I worship you, Xah.
--
Eric
`$=`;$_=\%!;($_)=/(.)/;$==++$|;($.,$/,$,,$\,$",$;,$^,$#,$~,$*,$:,@%)=(
$!=~/(.)(.).(.)(.)(.)(.)..(.)(.)(.)..(.)..(.)/,$"),$=++;$.++;$.++;
$_++;$_++;($_,$\,$,)=($~.$"."$;$/$%[$?]$_$\$,$:$%[$?]",$"&$~,$#,);$,++
;$,++;$^|=$";`$_$\$,$/$:$;$~$*$%[$?]$.$~$*${#}$%[$?]$;$\$"$^$~$*.>&$=`
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
Roedy Green wrote: > On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:34:21 -0500, "Matt Garrish" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted > someone who said : > >>Please do us all the favour of taking a basic literacy course. You aren't >>even close half the time, which just confirms you're a halfwit. > > are you bawling out robico or Xah? Does it really matter? -- Gunnar Hjalmarsson Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:34:21 -0500, "Matt Garrish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >Please do us all the favour of taking a basic literacy course. You aren't >even close half the time, which just confirms you're a halfwit. are you bawling out robico or Xah? Attributions are necessary for personal attacks. -- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On 16 Dec 2005 16:52:43 -0800, "Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > physocopic drugs! > Please do us all the favour of taking a basic literacy course. You aren't even close half the time, which just confirms you're a halfwit. Matt -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
robic0 wrote: > Xah, please admit to me that your under the influence of > physocopic drugs! He could be schizophrenic. Seekers of all things wierd on the internet can do no better than Gene Ray's Timecube: http://www.timecube.com/ His outpourings are so well known that he even gets a mention in the wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Ray And once you've fully absorbed the fact that "You are educated as a stupid android slave to the evil Word Animal Singularity Brotherhood", why not play the game of the theory over at: http://atrocities.primaryerror.net/timecube.html -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 09:55:10 +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >robic0 wrote: >> Xah Lee wrote: >>> >>> >> >> > >So, at last they found one another. :( Thanks for the coaching Gunnar !!! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
robic0 wrote: > Xah Lee wrote: >> >> > > So, at last they found one another. :( -- Gunnar Hjalmarsson Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
On 16 Dec 2005 16:52:43 -0800, "Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Responsible Software Licensing > >Xah Lee, 200307 > >Software is a interesting invention. Software has this interesting Soft, like your head >property, that it can be duplicated without cost, as if like copying it costs to dup, dup >money. Never in history are goods duplicable without cost. But with the wrong, you can dup your bullshit evrywhere for free >invention of computer, the ephemeral non-physical programs break that you don't know what a computer is >precept. In digital form, programs and music and books all become goods i bid a gigabuck for that gigabyte >in essentially infinite quantity. in a for() loop maybe > >All is good except, bads in digital form can also multiply equally, get a calculator, bad is negative and subtracts, not multiply >just as goods. Well known examples are computer viruses and email virus and email or virus in email? >spams. Unknown to the throng of unix morons are software bads. In a "software bads" is like asian bads, dumber than dog shit >unix moron's mind, the predominant quip among hackers is where is whats on the morons mind anyway Zah? >your code?, singnifying the mentality that a hacker's prestige is when is mentality signified, do a cat scan do any good? >judged on how much code he has contributed to the community. Therefore, per line or content? if the dude is dumb does his software get demoted >every fucking studs and happy-go-lucky morons put their homework on the right, the 9 inch dicked moron with the genious iq, and very tall.. >net, with a big stamp of FREE, and quite proud of their free... suck my 9 inch dick, and quite proud >contributions to the world. These digital bads, including well, a big dick is a gods gift to women (or did u mean digitial dick) >irresponsible programs, protocols, and languages, spread like viruses every program i ever met was irresponsible and never wore condoms (i never fucked with them so "i" don't know) >until they obtained the touting right of being the STANDARD or MOST yup, down south we call them the "John Henry", definetly the standard >POPULAR in industry, as if indicating superior quality. Examplary are nah, superior "dick size" doesen't mean mind >C, Perl, RFC, X-Windows, Apache, MySQL, Pretty Home Page (and almost oh, u name dropper your so intelligent >anything out of unix). The harm of a virus is temporal. The harm of a "virus" is a physical ailment, not a mind doodoo >irresponsible software (especially with unscrupulous promotion) is the i never knew a responsible software, can u name one? they don't talk to me, maybe cause i just curse them out.. hahahaaa >creation of a entire generation of bad thinking and monkey coders. The i think you mean monkey jakkingoff, which usually leads to bad thinking, i mean really man step away from the gun and put your hands in the air... >scale can be compared as to putting a bullet in a person brain, versus you mean surgically, i never saw one "put" in there. anybody seen this happen? >creating a creed with the Holocaust aftermath. omg, bring the jews into into it. > >Distribution of software is easily like pollution. I thought of a law so shit flows downhill eh... >that would ban the distribution of software bads, or like charging for keep the software bads to yourself (whatever that is) >garbage collection in modern societies. The problem is the difficulty nothin wrong with garbage, its a 3 billion dolla industry >of deciding what is good and what is bad. Like in so many things, i can we leave good/bad up got god, or at least anybody with a brain? >think the ultimate help is for people to be aware; so-called education; i think toilet paper helps alot better, edu is a mind fuk divorced from reality ... like u >I believe, if people are made aware of the situation i spoke of, then awareness comes when you "find" your navel >irresponsible software will decrease, regardless any individual's >opinion. i never knew a "mind" software that considered itself irresponsible > >The most important measure to counter the tremendous harm that is the epa >irresponsible software has done to the industry is to begin with can't we all agree "software" is not people ... >responsible licenses, such that the producer of a software will be can't we all agree licenses were made for marriages and dog tags .. >liable for damage incurred thru their software. As we know, today's your software killed my country, i want 1 trillion in damages >software license comes with a disclaimer that essentially says the i wish marriage license did >software is sold as is and the producer is not responsible for any software is sold. i think you should be instead, we know what u can do >damage, nor guaranteeing the functionality of the software. It is this, software functions as it was programmed, not as your conception of its use ... you should find out what "it" doess first >that ferments all sorts of sloppitudes and fads and myth
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
Responsible Software Licensing Xah Lee, 200307 Software is a interesting invention. Software has this interesting property, that it can be duplicated without cost, as if like copying money. Never in history are goods duplicable without cost. But with the invention of computer, the ephemeral non-physical programs break that precept. In digital form, programs and music and books all become goods in essentially infinite quantity. All is good except, bads in digital form can also multiply equally, just as goods. Well known examples are computer viruses and email spams. Unknown to the throng of unix morons are software bads. In a unix moron's mind, the predominant quip among hackers is “where is your code?”, singnifying the mentality that a hacker's prestige is judged on how much code he has contributed to the community. Therefore, every fucking studs and happy-go-lucky morons put their homework on the net, with a big stamp of FREE, and quite proud of their “contributions” to the world. These digital bads, including irresponsible programs, protocols, and languages, spread like viruses until they obtained the touting right of being the STANDARD or MOST POPULAR in industry, as if indicating superior quality. Examplary are C, Perl, RFC, X-Windows, Apache, MySQL, Pretty Home Page (and almost anything out of unix). The harm of a virus is temporal. The harm of irresponsible software (especially with unscrupulous promotion) is the creation of a entire generation of bad thinking and monkey coders. The scale can be compared as to putting a bullet in a person brain, versus creating a creed with the Holocaust aftermath. Distribution of software is easily like pollution. I thought of a law that would ban the distribution of software bads, or like charging for garbage collection in modern societies. The problem is the difficulty of deciding what is good and what is bad. Like in so many things, i think the ultimate help is for people to be aware; so-called education; I believe, if people are made aware of the situation i spoke of, then irresponsible software will decrease, regardless any individual's opinion. The most important measure to counter the tremendous harm that irresponsible software has done to the industry is to begin with responsible licenses, such that the producer of a software will be liable for damage incurred thru their software. As we know, today's software license comes with a disclaimer that essentially says the software is sold as is and the producer is not responsible for any damage, nor guaranteeing the functionality of the software. It is this, that ferments all sorts of sloppitudes and fads and myths to rampage and survive in the software industry. Once when software producers are liable for their products, just as bridge or airplane or transportation or house builders are responsible for the things they build, then injurious fads and creeds the likes of (Perl, Programing Patterns, eXtreme Programing, “Universal” Modeling Language...) will automatically disappear by dint of market force without anyone's stipulation. In our already established infrastructure of software and industry practices that is so already fucked up by existing shams, we can not immediately expect a about-face in software licenses from 0 liability to 100% liability. We should gradually make them responsible. And this, comes not from artificial force, but gradual establishment of awareness among software professionals and their consumers. (Producers include single individual to software houses, and consumers include not just mom & pop but from IT corps to military.) Please spread this idea. This post is archived at http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/responsible_license.html Xah [EMAIL PROTECTED] ∑ http://xahlee.org/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
