This is my site. Cool, huh? If you don't like it, well, I guess it lives up to its name for you, then.

Tue 14 Oct 2003

This article is perhaps the most subversive thing I have ever read with regards to linux. I simply cannot believe that anyone would cast the Free Software Foundation as villians. The author's description of the GPL is largely accurate, but the article completely misses the larger point. Now, repeat after me -- they are giving software away. How can these corporations complain about that? There are two huge benefits to using GPL software:

  1. A person can see the code. If they want, they can get into the program and change it themselves.
  2. When somebody else comes along and changes the code, they don't have to release those changes. Heck knows I've changed plenty of stuff on my linux systems, but I don't have an ftp server up with my changes. You only have to release the code if you are also distributing the program.
Think about it. Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, and many, many others have put many, many hours into creating the software that goes into a linux system. How in the world can Forbes complain that these corporations have the right to profit from their work? The scary thing is, the GPL does allow corporations to profit from the work of others -- see Red Hat, which employs Alan Cox.

Let's all have a moment of silence for poor, put upon Cisco. Their market cap isn't even twice that of the closest competitor -- and Nokia isn't really a competitor of Cisco, now. Just because they dwarf the rest of the industry doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to profit from the work of others now, does it? Oh, but it was all Linksys's fault, oh wait, no, it's really Broadcom's fault. The argument boils down to feeling sorry for poor little Cisco because they're too dang busy destroying the competition to actually look at what the heck they are selling. No wonder so much computer hardware is crap.

You know, I respect people who use the BSD license, but it just seems so fruitless. I mean, if you're going to give away software, why would you want others to be able to take it and sell it with nothing given back to the world?
Posted after Human Rights/computers ]

Boy, talk about a generic blog. What can I say, I'm not a design guy. My brother says he'll design a template for me if I want...

These are the sites that I read the most:

instapundit (like many, many other people)
Google News
OK, OK, so I'm biased. Big deal.

Arts & Letters Daily

The best dang writing on the web, period. (At least it was, when I set up this blog 4 years ago.)
Lileks (especially the Bleat)
Eject! Eject! Eject!

Dave Barry
Tim Blair
Worse Than Failure

Legal Stuff
How Appealing
Balkin (when I want to get mad)
Volokh & Co. (I like Phillipe the best) (where did he go, anyway?)
Some Harvard graduate who happens to be totally hilarious.

Other interesting political commentary
Colby Cosh
Impromptus (and what happened to him, too?)
Best of the Web

Baseball stuff
Hunt (What the heck happened to him, anyway?)
Viva El Birdos

Geek stuff

Sites I used to read all the time, but rarely visit anymore
Yahoo Money
Andrew Sullivan
New York Press

Marvelous ways to waste an afternoon
Travels with Samantha (rated PG-13)
The Institute of Official Cheer
The Fabulous Ruins of Detroit
Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics
The Tolkien Sarcasm Page
Wikipedia's BJAODN

Contact me here


All quotes