Support freedom in software!

[powerofreason]

Those of us who have progressed far enough along the path of liberty realize the importance of exposing IP for the nonsensical fraud that it is. A fraud that is not only morally reprehensible but also consistently anti human progress and harmful to the consumer underclass (as opposed to the privileged "creator" class). This thread is not intended to be an IP debate however so I will close this paragraph with two links to works guaranteed to have to you rethinking this State imposed meddling with the free market. 1. Against Intellectual Property, by N. Stephen Kinsella (http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf). 2. Against Intellectual Monopoly, by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine (http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm) (who are not even libertarians, just people bold enough to challenge this illogical concept, which we, those oppressed by the monster State, must under its effects toil).

Anyways, use those screenshot tools to show your opensource/pirate pride!

Below: SS of my new lappy's desktop running Windows 7 Ultimate (cracked). Thats about $300 the corporatist mega crooks won't get their filthy blood-stained hands on. Note the 8 cores of the 1337 Intel Core i7 processor (monitored in the widget on the upper right). Normally I run Ubuntu, Fedora, or openSUSE, but linux support for my wifi card sucks a fat 1. And note the open source software!

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/622/15277809.png:cool::cool::D

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

i never had to buy a os because i dont build computers but i do think windows is severely overpriced, just like adobe suite, but if you're a student you at least get a 80% discount on that (cracked versions are really buggy)

[pcosmar]

Linux user #412973

Happy Linux user since 2004. :)

[LibForestPaul]

Windows 7 Ultimate (cracked).
Why do you steal and why do lack in judgment?

Ubuntu 8.10

[powerofreason]

Windows 7 Ultimate (cracked).
Why do you steal and why do lack in judgment?

Ubuntu 8.10

If I have stolen, then tell me who is missing what?

Waiting......

cue jeopardy music.

[powerofreason]

i never had to buy a os because i dont build computers but i do think windows is severely overpriced, just like adobe suite, but if you're a student you at least get a 80% discount on that (cracked versions are really buggy)

Myth. My copy works perfectly. It is simply Windows 7 Ultimate with a small modification the code. Very small. Thats all.

[specsaregood]

but i do think windows is severely overpriced, just like adobe suite,
Please explain how you came to that conclusion?

[powerofreason]

Linux user #412973

Happy Linux user since 2004. :)

Linux user #89372398728 to have wifi issues. And I don't mean a noob issue. I consider myself an expert. I worked on a solution for HOURS AND HOURS. And i could not get shit to work. Not ndiswrapper, not compiling the newest wireless testing kernel from git, not trying different firmware, NOTHING. Pitiful.

[powerofreason]

Please explain how you came to that conclusion?

There is a LOT not to like about Windows. Too much to get into, really. Lets start with NOT OPEN SOURCE

and

COSTS MONEY.

Ubuntu is an excellent OS. Cost? Free. Forever. Including updates and all the support by linux experts you could ever want. Doesn't slow down over time. Infinitely more secure. Practically immune to malware and viruses. STABLE. Simple, unbloated. Supports vast majority of hardware out of the box. The vast majority of all the software you could ever want is in the Ubuntu repositories. A huge wealth of programs providing functionality Windows can't touch. Oh, did I mention FREE FOREVER. One more time. FREEEEE

The pro IP ppl cant wrap their heads around the massive success of linux, I'm sure. Look for Ubuntu 10.10 in several months to be the standard OS on the computers of a major manufacturer! The beginning of the end for the corporate State corrupted monster known as Microsoft? Lets hope so. Fuck their monopolizing asses.

[specsaregood]

There is a LOT not to like about Windows. Too much to get into, really. Lets start with NOT OPEN SOURCE
and
COSTS MONEY.
There is a lot to like about it as well. But that has nothing to do with my question. He claimed it is overpriced, I'd like to know how he came to that conclusion. The fact that it is not open source doesn't bother me. MS does have quite a few open source products nowadays. Their entire .NET framework --which is awesome -- for example, and even the OS sources are available to partners that need it.

Oh and in case you haven't seen this.
http://www.codeplex.com/


CodePlex is Microsoft's open source project hosting web site. You can use CodePlex to create new projects to share with the world, join others who have already started their own projects, or use the applications on this site and provide feedback

[specsaregood]

A huge wealth of programs providing functionality Windows can't touch.

What can you do on linux that one can't do on windows?



The pro IP ppl cant wrap their heads around the massive success of linux, I'm sure.
You assume a lot. There is no reason one can't be pro IP and pro-open source or linux software at the same time. Hell, the GPL relies on IP to keep source open. but hey, I'm a BSD-license guy and find the GPL less "free".

[Old Ducker]

Kinsella is a narcissist, an idiot and an asshole to boot. IP doesn't require a state and to declare it "immoral" is arrogant and absurd. Libertarians are foolish to follow this path...it's a dead end.

[powerofreason]

There is a lot to like about it as well. But that has nothing to do with my question. He claimed it is overpriced, I'd like to know how he came to that conclusion. The fact that it is not open source doesn't bother me. MS does have quite a few open source products nowadays. Their entire .NET framework --which is awesome -- for example, and even the OS sources are available to partners that need it.

Oh and in case you haven't seen this.
http://www.codeplex.com/

Touche! I just wanted to make a point. And quote you at the same time :P

But really, its quite clear that Micro$haft and the govt make a great team. Great as in greatly evil. M$oft = exploitative crooks. Strangling the OS market with the power of the State on their side. Not that no one would buy Windows in a free market. Its not a half bad OS. But again, its quite clear that Micro$uck has negatively influenced the development of linux, for example. Using the legal system, and in other devious ways. But I won't get into detail, bc I'm pretty sure no one cares.

[powerofreason]

Kinsella is a narcissist, an idiot and an asshole to boot. IP doesn't require a state and to declare it "immoral" is arrogant and absurd. Libertarians are foolish to follow this path...it's a dead end.

Arrogant? Perhaps on the surface.

Absurd? Nope. Read the book.

Kinsella is a narcissist/asshole? Idk maybe. I don't like him on a personal level much, from what I know of him. Does anyone lol?

But he's not an idiot. In fact, I think he's brilliant. He sure knows how to craft a logical argument and fill a page with airtight reasoning.

IP doesn't require a state? What are you smokin? Must be the same stuff Rothbard was on when he proposed his absurd little IP protection scheme that he envisioned would come about in a free market. Those of us that think have largely moved on from the flawed "bundle of rights" concept, however.

[specsaregood]

Touche! I just wanted to make a point. And quote you at the same time :P


I'm an MS business partner and my company sits on one of their advisory boards and i've contributed to open-source projects. Open-source and IP are not mutually exclusive ideas. Hell, a LOT of the growth of linux is due to support from big companies that support IP. IBM, SUN/ORACLE, GOOG and others. You think those companies want to get rid of IP? I think not.

Also, for all of the "M$" talk and badmouthing bill gates that has been done. $teve Job$ and Apple are 10x worse and I'm glad they never got as big as MS.

Also, still waiting to find out: what can you do on linux that I can't do on windows. I can't think of anything really, but I'm interested.

[powerofreason]

What can you do on linux that one can't do on windows?

I should have added, "or do without great fuss and difficulty."

How about run a secure webserver?

Or set up an SSH server in 15 seconds? ('apt-get install ssh', wait 14 seconds)

Or run anything from the command line? Including really useful and simple commands/programs like:

cat /proc/cpuinfo
lspci
ifconfig
iwlist
dd
fdisk
sftp
alsamixer

to name a very small fraction...

Can you run 'apt-get install php5-cli' write a php script, and then execute it from the command line? Can you find a massive library of open source software including serious audio editing (Ardour), audio input/output routing (jackd, go try that on windows), can you recompile your windows kernel to add or remove features? Can you write a C script, name it 'example.c' and then compile it from the command line with 'gcc -o example example.c'

Obviously I'm throwing out completely random examples. But linux has vast and obvious advantages over Windows. Vast. Thats the point.

The only reason I am typing this on windows is because the amateur fool that atrociously coded the linux driver (or kernel module, perhaps) for my wifi card hasn't been replaced yet.


You assume a lot. There is no reason one can't be pro IP and pro-open source or linux software at the same time. Hell, the GPL relies on IP to keep source open. but hey, I'm a BSD-license guy and find the GPL less "free".

Not sure I disagree here enough to counter. Except that I will say open source does not need to rely on a criminal organization (a state) to survive and thrive. You can be pro-IP and pro open source, I agree.

[Pennsylvania]

Urban Terror!

[nandnor]

nvm

[Old Ducker]

Arrogant? Perhaps on the surface.

Absurd? Nope. Read the book.

Kinsella is a narcissist/asshole? Idk maybe. I don't like him on a personal level much, from what I know of him. Does anyone lol?

But he's not an idiot. In fact, I think he's brilliant. He sure knows how to craft a logical argument and fill a page with airtight reasoning.

IP doesn't require a state? What are you smokin? Must be the same stuff Rothbard was on when he proposed his absurd little IP protection scheme that he envisioned would come about in a free market. Those of us that think have largely moved on from the flawed "bundle of rights" concept, however.

Okay maybe he's not an idiot, just evil. What else can you call someone who gets pleasure from the destruction of a right, namely the right to the product of one's intellect, creativity and experience and then have the gall to call himself a libertarian?

I won't waste my time reading his bullshit. I've had plenty of one on one debates with him. The bottom line is that if there is a market for IP (which there is), the market will provide it, likely through industry associations regardless of whether the Kinsella approves of it or not.

[specsaregood]

I should have added, "or do without great fuss and difficulty."

Uhm, yeah, you can pretty much do all that easily in windows and most of it from the command line as well. Just because you don't know how to do them from the commandline doesn't mean they can't be done. Have you tried? I'm a commandline junkie myself.



Obviously I'm throwing out completely random examples. But linux has vast and obvious advantages over Windows. Vast. Thats the point.

Your examples are poor and aren't actually true.

Oh and as far as your apt-get example. Guess what? MS is paying somebody to develop such a system for windows:
http://blogs.msdn.com/garretts/archive/2010/03/31/the-common-opensource-application-publishing-platform-coapp.aspx
https://launchpad.net/coapp

I'm guessing you didn't know that MS has an "open source development" team.

[powerofreason]

I'm an MS business partner and my company sits on one of their advisory boards and i've contributed to open-source projects.

*Clap clap clap* Good 4 u.



Open-source and IP are not mutually exclusive ideas. Hell, a LOT of the growth of linux is due to support from big companies that support IP. IBM, SUN/ORACLE, GOOG and others. You think those companies want to get rid of IP? I think not.

Don't think I said they were mutally exclusive... But do you think M$uck likes the fact that linux powers the internet? Thats hugely embarrassing for them. So to some extent, they are competitors and business "enemies."


Also, for all of the "M$" talk and badmouthing bill gates that has been done. $teve Job$ and Apple are 10x worse and I'm glad they never got as big as MS.

Hate those clowns too. Mac blows.


Also, still waiting to find out: what can you do on linux that I can't do on windows. I can't think of anything really, but I'm interested.

Ok. How about audio input/output routing? Routing the audio output of one program into the inout of another? Try that on your buggy proprietary mess of code diarrhea :p

Like I said in one of my other posts, its not necessarily what you can do on linux that you can't do on Windows, but what you can do easily and efficiently on linux that would take a great hassle on Windows.

[specsaregood]

Ok. How about audio input/output routing? Routing the audio output of one program into the inout of another?

I don't understand why you think that is hard. Anytime I capture/save an online radio stream I'm doing just that.



proprietary mess of code diarrhea :p

You assume too much, once again.



Like I said in one of my other posts, its not necessarily what you can do on linux that you can't do on Windows, but what you can do easily and efficiently on linux that would take a great hassle on Windows.
I've been a UNIX admin and I don't find windows any more difficult or time consuming to do anything. You just must not know what you are doing on windows.

LOL @ "linux powers the internet." That is funny.

[powerofreason]

Uhm, yeah, you can pretty much do all that easily in windows and most of it from the command line as well. Just because you don't know how to do them from the commandline doesn't mean they can't be done. Have you tried? I'm a commandline junkie myself.


Your examples are poor and aren't actually true.

Oh and as far as your apt-get example. Guess what? MS is paying somebody to develop such a system for windows:
http://blogs.msdn.com/garretts/archive/2010/03/31/the-common-opensource-application-publishing-platform-coapp.aspx
https://launchpad.net/coapp

I'm guessing you didn't know that MS has an "open source development" team.

You know what they say! If ya can't beat em, join em! Now if they would just stop being greedy State-corrupted assholes and release the Windows source code and just sell support like good little entrepreneurs.

My examples are "poor" and "not true"

uhh

Care to explain? Maybe you can whip up the equivalent of 'iwlist wlan0 scan' or 'iwlist wlan0 mode monitor'

Which reminds me, just how much of a royal pain in the ass is it to do wireless penetration testing with Windows? Or any kind of security auditing, for that matter? Where's nmap? netcat? w3af? etc, etc.

[powerofreason]

I don't understand why you think that is hard. Anytime I capture/save an online radio stream I'm doing just that.

I am not talking about doing simplistic crap like that. I'm talking about incredibly useful things like putting together an internet radio show and coordinating all your audio output and input right. The professional sounding product is really phenomenal for how easy it is to set up. Nevermind that low low cost of zero.



You assume too much, once again.

Of course, of course.


I've been a UNIX admin and I don't find windows any more difficult or time consuming to do anything. You just must not know what you are doing on windows.

Okay.... You're in a tiny minority, I'm sure.


LOL @ "linux powers the internet." That is funny.

It happens to power the site you're browsing right now, for starters.

Apache/2.0.63 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.63 OpenSSL/0.9.7a mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 Server at www.ronpaulforums.com Port 80

Uh oh what now biyatch ?

[specsaregood]

Care to explain? Maybe you can whip up the equivalent of 'iwlist wlan0 scan' or 'iwlist wlan0 mode monitor'

Uhm, right click -> show all wireless networks?
or better yet install any of the freely avaiable wifi scanners?
This one works for me: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/gadgets/WifiScanner.aspx



Which reminds me, just how much of a royal pain in the ass is it to do wireless penetration testing with Windows? Or any kind of security auditing, for that matter? Where's nmap? netcat? w3af? etc, etc.
http://www.stuartaxon.com/2008/05/22/netcat-in-windows/
took 20 seconds to find.
Most of the stuff you mention are not-linux, but addons. And probably not hard to find freely available windows ports.

I'm taking the dogs to the woods, its been fun.

[powerofreason]

Cited quote from wikipedia:

"...while a 2008 estimate suggested that 60% of all web servers ran Linux."

Thats a low estimate, I'd wager.

[specsaregood]

It happens to power the site you're browsing right now, for starters.

Apache/2.0.63 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.63 OpenSSL/0.9.7a mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 Server at www.ronpaulforums.com Port 80

Uh oh what now biyatch ?

You think rpf's is powering the internet? besides that doesn't say linux. It could be linux, but it says unix. just saying. Should i go find thousands of big sites powered by MS or IBM or freebsd, etc? Hell, even the root nameservers run on a variety of OS and hardware they aren't all "powered by linux". LOL


Cited quote from wikipedia:
"...while a 2008 estimate suggested that 60% of all web servers ran Linux."Thats a low estimate, I'd wager.
The fact that pretty much every linux user has a "web server" running, skews the results. To poll of all the large or business sites and it will come out a lot different.

Ok, really going now.

[powerofreason]

Uhm, right click -> show all wireless networks?
or better yet install any of the freely avaiable wifi scanners?
This one works for me: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/gadgets/WifiScanner.aspx

I'm talking command line here, genius.



http://www.stuartaxon.com/2008/05/22/netcat-in-windows/
took 20 seconds to find.
Most of the stuff you mention are not-linux, but addons. And probably not hard to find freely available windows ports.

Alrite... have fun setting it up when in linux you can:
apt-get install netcat / yum install netcat / zypper in netcat.... etc
and be done.

Yea, you found a useful tool with a Windows port, grats. Think you can find ports of each of 18,000+ packages available in the ubuntu repositories? Think you can spend a few seconds typing the command to install each program you want? And see it downloaded, installed, and configured automatically?

Yea I don't think so.




I'm taking the dogs to the woods, its been fun.

Ok bud. Keep on pretending, your ego loves it.

[powerofreason]

You think rpf's is powering the internet?

Yes, clearly that is exactly what I believe.


besides that doesn't say linux. It could be linux, but it says unix. just saying. Should i go find thousands of big sites powered by MS or IBM or freebsd, etc? Hell, even the root nameservers run on a variety of OS and hardware they aren't all "powered by linux". LOL

Its linux. Most likely. Red Hat Enterprise Linux in yo face.



The fact that pretty much every linux user has a "web server" running, skews the results. To poll of all the large or business sites and it will come out a lot different.

No.


Ok, really going now.

To your Bill Gates shrine to worship?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

why is this thread becoming a flame war, some people like windows, some people like linux

[bchavez]

How about run a secure webserver?

Or set up an SSH server in 15 seconds? ('apt-get install ssh', wait 14 seconds)

Or run anything from the command line? Including really useful and simple commands/programs like:

cat /proc/cpuinfo
lspci
ifconfig
iwlist
dd
fdisk
sftp
alsamixer

to name a very small fraction...

Can you run 'apt-get install php5-cli' write a php script, and then execute it from the command line? Can you find a massive library of open source software including serious audio editing (Ardour), audio input/output routing (jackd, go try that on windows), can you recompile your windows kernel to add or remove features? Can you write a C script, name it 'example.c' and then compile it from the command line with 'gcc -o example example.c'

Obviously I'm throwing out completely random examples. But linux has vast and obvious advantages over Windows. Vast. Thats the point.


wtf?


How about run a secure webserver?

lmao... so, you think apache is secure huh? explain to me what makes apache immune to software bugs? wow. that's news to me... they have the silver bullet huh?

last time i checked zone-h data, apache was the most defaced server on the planet. 1) by bugs and 2) by user error because not everyone is a linux expert. yeah man, that's a secure webserver!

lmao.. please do your reading first bro...

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/zone-h-web-defacement-data-shows-platforms-dont-matter/959


set up an SSH server in 15 seconds

I can do that just as fast... ever heard of CYGWIN?


cat /proc/cpuinfo
lspci
ifconfig
iwlist
dd
fdisk
sftp
alsamixer

to name a very small fraction... Can you run 'apt-get install php5-cli' write a php script, and then execute it from the command line?audio input/output routing (jackd, go try that on windows), can you recompile your windows kernel to add or remove features? Can you write a C script, name it 'example.c' and then compile it from the command line with 'gcc -o example example.c'

cat /proc/cpuinfo.... heh.. i can top that... try CPU-Z, or "ctrl+shift+esc" and click on the performance tab.

PHP? yeah, actually:
http://www.microsoft.com/web/platform/phponwindows.aspx

click the green button if you really want to... php is a shitty language anyway, why would I bother? Use PowerShell if you want to be a script kitty.

C? wtf? example.c? are you serious? Just that comment alone shows pretty shallow knowledge of software development and software engineering... any real software developer KNOWS real programs aren't written with a single "exmaple.c" file. unless you come from an academic world.... lmao... your real world view of software is pretty simple. if only I thought the world ran on the simplicity of "example.c"; that would be quite nice!

If you had any inkling of how to build commercial or open-source software, you'd know writing maintainable / agile code is paramount... and I'm sorry to say, the C programming language doesn't lend itself to this well... so your C example sucks... better read up on Java (AT LEAST), or C# even better. I'm sure I could write ANY user-level program in less code in C# than you can in C. Less code = more maintainability = less bugs = increased productivity.

Oh, but C# came from Microsoft right? That must mean it's bad.... heh.. take a look at mono bro...

if you want to spin your wheels on writing C code, that's on you man... the libitarian principal of doing whatever you like is cool with me... C has its places, but for the majority of apps, you better pick something else.

and btw, Eclipse and other wanna be IDEs suck balls so bad, it's like finger nails on a chalk board... they got nothing on Visual Studio.

peace.

[powerofreason]

wtf?



lmao... so, you think apache is secure huh? explain to me what makes apache immune to software bugs? wow. that's news to me... they have the silver bullet huh?

last time i checked zone-h data, apache was the most defaced server on the planet. 1) by bugs and 2) by user error because not everyone is a linux expert. yeah man, that's a secure webserver!

Most used, thus most defaced. Duh. To keep it secure? Don't be an idiot and stay updated. Again, duh.


lmao.. please do your reading first bro...

*chuckle*





I can do that just as fast... ever heard of CYGWIN?

Lol! You think thats the same?




cat /proc/cpuinfo.... heh.. i can top that... try CPU-Z, or "ctrl+shift+esc" and click on the performance tab.

Or cat /proc/cpuinfo




C? wtf? example.c? are you serious? Just that comment alone shows pretty shallow knowledge of software development and software engineering... any real software developer KNOWS real programs aren't written with a single "exmaple.c" file. unless you come from an academic world.... lmao... your real world view of software is pretty simple. if only I thought the world ran on the simplicity of "example.c"; that would be quite nice!

Keeping it simple bud.... Unless you want me to post the terminal output of compiling the source code of a regular sized program. Yea, I'm sure a great many RPF visitors would find that highly interesting.


If you had any inkling of how to build commercial or open-source software, you'd know writing maintainable / agile code is paramount... and I'm sorry to say, the C programming language doesn't lend itself to this well... so your C example sucks... better read up on Java (AT LEAST), or C# even better. I'm sure I could write ANY user-level program in less code in C# than you can in C. Less code = more maintainability = less bugs = increased productivity.

Never claimed to be a programmer.... I dabble here and there.... Don't care bro.


Oh, but C# came from Microsoft right? That must mean it's bad.... heh.. take a look at mono bro...

if you want to spin your wheels on writing C code, that's on you man... the libitarian principal of doing whatever you like is cool with me... C has its places, but for the majority of apps, you better pick something else.

and btw, Eclipse and other wanna be IDEs suck balls so bad... and got nothing on Visual Studio.

Again... Glad you think so, but me and everyone else just do not care.


peace.

Bye!

[powerofreason]

Man that was one 1337 dude!

not

[bchavez]

Never claimed to be a programmer.... I dabble here and there.... Don't care bro.

dabble? lol...


can you recompile your windows kernel to add or remove features?

im sure your dabbling in recompiling your linux kernel is sure to produce great results. lmfao.

that's l33t man. your cool.

[powerofreason]

dabble? lol...

This is why you shouldn't make stupid claims in your linux > windows, or that PHP > x, or C > y.

It's dumb.

Thats not even the topic of the thread....

[bchavez]

get off windows....

the freemarket wants windows. so be it. if there's money to be made; its fine.

if microsoft f*cks up, the market will move to something else.

[bchavez]

Most used, thus most defaced. Duh. To keep it secure? Don't be an idiot and stay updated. Again, duh.

let me clarify my point:

my point was... apache is not secure as you claim it to be based on the fact it's defaced more.

I did not say that IIS is more secure or is better than apache... (even though IMHO, it is).

And yes, don't be an idiot. Keep IIS updated, and you should be fine too.

[silverhandorder]

I am all for repealing IP laws but that does not mean you have to disrespect people like microsoft that don't want you sharing their product once it is bought. Don't buy it but don't steal either.

[low preference guy]

I'm for repealing IP laws as well, but that doesn't force Microsoft to be open source. Forcing anyone to be open source is tyrannical.

[pcosmar]

I don't care for the windoze system. But my main reason for not using it is their business practices.
Especially their EULA.

That said the first line of defense is your Firewall. I suggest checking it,,regularly.
I also recommend this site. They can scan your firewall, and they also offer good tips and information on security.
https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2

It should look like this.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2005/2493103323_cd4311cbe1.jpg

If not,,you have work to do.

[LibertarianfromGermany]

I'm for repealing IP laws as well, but that doesn't force Microsoft to be open source. Forcing anyone to be open source is tyrannical.

Well, ofc you don't force anyone to be open source, but you just need one guy violating the contract and sharing his cracked version on the internet. Yes, that guy broke the contract and ought to be punished for that, but everyone downloading the cracked version didn't violate any contract (because they never agreed to any contract).

[powerofreason]

I'm for repealing IP laws as well, but that doesn't force Microsoft to be open source. Forcing anyone to be open source is tyrannical.

I don't advocate such a thing.

[powerofreason]

Well, ofc you don't force anyone to be open source, but you just need one guy violating the contract and sharing his cracked version on the internet. Yes, that guy broke the contract and ought to be punished for that, but everyone downloading the cracked version didn't violate any contract (because they never agreed to any contract).

Some contracts aren't valid.


The Libertarian View on Fine Print, Shrinkwrap, Clickwrap

May 8, 2009 by Stephan Kinsella

Court Rejects Online Terms Of Service That Reserve The Right To Change At Any Time spurred me to post a comment about this, collecting some of the thoughts I’ve had about such matters for a long time.

As I note there, my own theory of contract is presented in my article A Theory of Contracts: Binding Promises, Title Transfer, and Inalienability. And while I of course as a libertarian favor freedom of contract, I am leery of too formulaic or formalistic libertarian positions. Partly this stems from my growing aversion to “armchair” theorizing (see my post The Limits of Armchair Theorizing: The case of Threats). But as an example, and as I noted in the contract article, I disagree with putting so much stock in whether a communication is a “promise” or not (Rothbard, e.g., puts a bit too much emphasis on this, in my view). The question is what the parties meant by their communication–even if the word “promise” is used, this could be intended to effectuate a transfer of title. Another is, say, the over-emphasis on the notion of “incitement” by Rothbard and Block (as discussed in Causation and Aggression). They want to rule out “incitement” as a type of aggression in all cases; to my mind, it’s a more context-dependent determination. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.

A similar issue arises in the case of contracts. Many libertarians, often with only a crude understanding of the nature of contracts, just assume, Rand-like, some kind of mystical “power” to “bind” oneself by “a contract”. They tend also to equate contracts with a written agreement. [Note: See update below] They thus tend to think that “if it’s written in ink, it’s binding, no matter what”. To my mind, this is too formalistic. A writing is neither necessary nor sufficient to form a contract. Most contracts are not written. They may be oral. They do not even need to be verbal–I hand you a dollar, pointing to the newspaper; you take my dollar and give me the paper. A sale happens, nonverbally (no oral or written communication). And “what is written” is not necessarily dispositive. To my mind, a written agreement is only evidence of what the parties actually agreed to. But it is rebuttable. The written agreement may be very sparse: in which case in the case of disputes, there is no choice but to resort to “gap-fillers,” default rules, and the like. Or the agreement may contain ambiguities or even inconsistencies–this may require similar construction methods, or even invalidation of the agreement.

The agreement may not even be intended to be binding, such as in the case of a so-called “simulation” (a contract which, by mutual agreement, does not express the true intent of the parties; see my Civil Law to Common Law Dictionary, entry for “Simulation”; Louisiana Civil Code, arts. 2025-27).

Or there may be fraud or deception which nullifies the whole writing or requires certain provisions not to be enforced.

Given all this, in my view we should not just assume that “whatever is in writing” is part of a binding obligation or enforceable agreement. This bears on the issue of fine print, and so-called shrink-wrap and clickwrap agreements (incidentally the law of various countries on this issue is discussed in my book Online Contract Formation–which is not bedside reading, n.b.). Libertarians seem to just assume, too quickly in my view, that all such fine print should be enforceable. These assumptions seem to be made in the absence of the awareness of the nuances noted above.So one problem with click-wrap agreements, for example, is that there is (arguably) often no “meeting of the minds” on the fine print–and the vendor is fully aware of this. If the customers routinely just click the “I have read and agree to these terms” box but never do read it, and the vendor knows this, then it’s a sort of fiction to assume both sides have actually agreed on these terms. For example supposed buried in fine print for a contract for sale of a $20 software program is the provision, “Buyer agrees to give 50% of his income to Vendor for life.” Is this enforceable? Of course not. Why not? Because there was no agreement to this. So the “hidden” terms have to be in some sense reasonable, at the least. (Here, too, “inalienability” concerns may kick in–even if the party is fully aware he is signing away his life income, or his kidney, or life, say, this may not be enforceable for inalienability concerns–see, on this, the contract article noted above, plus my article Inalienability and Punishment.)

I am not saying that clickwrap and fine print is not enforceable–I’m just saying that the libertarian view on property rights and contracts does not require that we formalistically equate “the contract” with “the writing,” and it does not require we figure all this out from our armchairs. The libertarian view can recognize that contracts about consensual, intentional transfers of title; that manifesting such consent is a matter of communication; that making determinations about the nature of a contract, or title transfer, is necessarily a fact-specific, context-bound inquiry.

Update: I stumbled across some interesting language in an older (1825) version of the Louisiana Civil Codes, which beautifully supports what I have said many time to libertarian formalists and literalists who keep equating the contract with the writing:

Art. 1755.–The contract must not be confounded with the instrument in writing by which it is witnessed. The contract may subsist, although the written act may, for some defect, be declared void ; and the written act may be good and authentic, although the contract it witnesses be illegal. The contract itself is only void for some cause or defect determined by law.

I can’t find an analogue in the modern La. Civil Code (see Arts. 1906, 1907 etc.); this provision must have been removed at some point.

Read more: The Libertarian View on Fine Print, Shrinkwrap, Clickwrap — Mises Economics Blog http://blog.mises.org/9923/the-libertarian-view-on-fine-print-shrinkwrap-clickwrap/#ixzz0o39sGOin

[jmdrake]

Linux user #89372398728 to have wifi issues. And I don't mean a noob issue. I consider myself an expert. I worked on a solution for HOURS AND HOURS. And i could not get shit to work. Not ndiswrapper, not compiling the newest wireless testing kernel from git, not trying different firmware, NOTHING. Pitiful.

Well my Ubuntu install works better with Wifi then my preinstalled Windows 7. At school I often have trouble connecting under Win 7 and never have problems under Ubuntu.

I don't think running pirated software is "sticking it to the man" at all. Do you know how many backdoors MicroSoft may have in your software? And they care more about market penetration than they care about the measly $300 they didn't get from you. Why do you think that tried to kill Netscape by bundling Internet Explorer? Why do you think Bill Gates "gives away" computers to some schools and heavily discounts software to all of them? I was setting up a computer lab at a private school and had just about convinced them to use OpenOffice when the principal found out she could get MicroSoft office for dirt cheap (about $10 per license). I would go full OpenSource if I could, but there are some critical apps (such as the exam software) that I have to run under Windows. At the university I attend there are about as many Macs as there are Windows machines and Macs and Windows are just as supported. Software "freedom" will be here when institutions feel as compelled to support Linux as are now to support Macs. People running pirated Windows do not change that equation one iota.

It is good that you run VLC and VirtualBox. (VLC is simply the best media player out there, free or commercial.) I'm not sure what Deluge is. I see you've got a Zune. If you want to be really radical get a GP2X. ;)

http://wiki.gp2x.org/wiki/Main_Page

[specsaregood]

I'm talking command line here, genius.


Oh, well it if must be commandline, I take it you have never used netsh?

Here is one example:
"netsh wlan show all"
cheers!

[powerofreason]

Well my Ubuntu install works better with Wifi then my preinstalled Windows 7. At school I often have trouble connecting under Win 7 and never have problems under Ubuntu.

I don't think running pirated software is "sticking it to the man" at all. Do you know how many backdoors MicroSoft may have in your software? And they care more about market penetration than they care about the measly $300 they didn't get from you. Why do you think that tried to kill Netscape by bundling Internet Explorer? Why do you think Bill Gates "gives away" computers to some schools and heavily discounts software to all of them? I was setting up a computer lab at a private school and had just about convinced them to use OpenOffice when the principal found out she could get MicroSoft office for dirt cheap (about $10 per license). I would go full OpenSource if I could, but there are some critical apps (such as the exam software) that I have to run under Windows. At the university I attend there are about as many Macs as there are Windows machines and Macs and Windows are just as supported. Software "freedom" will be here when institutions feel as compelled to support Linux as are now to support Macs. People running pirated Windows do not change that equation one iota.

It is good that you run VLC and VirtualBox. (VLC is simply the best media player out there, free or commercial.) I'm not sure what Deluge is. I see you've got a Zune. If you want to be really radical get a GP2X. ;)

http://wiki.gp2x.org/wiki/Main_Page

You make some good points. Deluge is an open source bittorrent client.

[low preference guy]

Well, ofc you don't force anyone to be open source, but you just need one guy violating the contract and sharing his cracked version on the internet. Yes, that guy broke the contract and ought to be punished for that, but everyone downloading the cracked version didn't violate any contract (because they never agreed to any contract).

agree. i'll accept that because otherwise it's a violation of rights of the people who never agreed to the contract, and i'm opposed to any and all such violations.

[silverhandorder]

Some contracts aren't valid.

This is nonsense take responcibility for your actions. If you click you agree without reading then accept the consequences should you break the contract.

[powerofreason]

This is nonsense take responcibility for your actions. If you click you agree without reading then accept the consequences should you break the contract.

A contract is a meeting of the minds. There is no such meeting of the minds in this "contract."

[TruckinMike]

Linux user #412973

Happy Linux user since 2004. :)

Started in '05 with Red Hat, then went to SUSE, and now Debian 2.6 with "LDE"

And Knoppix for fun.

But I still have SatanSoft on my laptop -- for Verizon wireless. Ugh:mad: -- One day I'm going to try to run it with Ubuntu, I heard it works.

Also, I'm long time OpenOffice and GIMP user.

TMike:)

[Bman]

A contract is a meeting of the minds. There is no such meeting of the minds in this "contract."

A contract is an agreement enforceable by law. What the heck do you mean by a meeting of the minds?

A person agrees to terms upon purchase. If they do not agree to the terms it means they do not make the purchase. Now there is some grey area here on what is actually enforceable by law. I rather believe, right or wrong, that in today's world your argument would not fair well in a court of law, but good luck.

[hugolp]

Anyone thinking than running pirated software is fighting against MicroSoft is deluding himself/herself.

MS benefits from pirating. The model of MS is not offering the best software, but offering the software that everybody uses and knows how to use. Therefore governments and companies just pay for his software because its the one everybody is used to and know how to use. MS does not care if some million people are running pirated copies of his software as long as governments and companies pay him for his software. In fact, MS is happy that millions of people run his pirated software because it helps windows to be the most used and best known system.

Microsoft model is based on piracy. That is why his piracy checks are very soft. If MS were to really get strong on pirates (and technically it could) it would loose a lot of market share, and that would mark its demise.

So, if you are using windows, wether legal or pirate, you are helping MS.

[nandnor]

nvm

[TruckinMike]

In defense of Linux... (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/01/nsa_helps_micro_1.html)


For the first time, the giant software maker is acknowledging the help of the secretive agency, better known for eavesdropping on foreign officials and, more recently, U.S. citizens as part of the Bush administration's effort to combat terrorism. The agency said it has helped in the development of the security of Microsoft's new operating system -- the brains of a computer -- to protect it from worms, Trojan horses and other insidious computer attackers.

[...]

The NSA declined to comment on its security work with other software firms, but Sager said Microsoft is the only one "with this kind of relationship at this point where there's an acknowledgment publicly."

The NSA, which provided its service free, said it was Microsoft's idea to acknowledge the spy agency's role.


Go Linux!!

TMike

[powerofreason]

http://en.windows7sins.org/

[specsaregood]

Windows lacks in command line tools and multi user system capability. The whole windows filesystem is unsuitable for it, all the attempts to push it in have been band aids.

How is the filesystem unsuitable for command line tools and multi-user capabilities? NTFS has finer grained access control than most unix installs. How did you come to this conclusion?

[squarepusher]

Anyone thinking than running pirated software is fighting against MicroSoft is deluding himself/herself.

MS benefits from pirating. The model of MS is not offering the best software, but offering the software that everybody uses and knows how to use. Therefore governments and companies just pay for his software because its the one everybody is used to and know how to use. MS does not care if some million people are running pirated copies of his software as long as governments and companies pay him for his software. In fact, MS is happy that millions of people run his pirated software because it helps windows to be the most used and best known system.

Microsoft model is based on piracy. That is why his piracy checks are very soft. If MS were to really get strong on pirates (and technically it could) it would loose a lot of market share, and that would mark its demise.

So, if you are using windows, wether legal or pirate, you are helping MS.

I installed Windows 7 a few months back, and all of a sudden I started to get this message as of last week "Your Windows is not genuine" and it changes my background to all black (kind of annoying). It may have turned autoupdates off, but for now I can still use the gist of the OS even if I get notifications fairly often

[TruckinMike]

http://en.windows7sins.org/

Don't forget the hidden microphones on motherboards* and the built in voice recognition software in W7 - What a great combination if you are spying agency, like the NSA. What else is there that we don't know?


TMike



* a friend of mine found two microphones that were NOT listed on the user manual for his fujitsu laptop (Using a linux hardware scanning program). After researching that oddity on the internet he found others in the same boat. IE - Others have found the same thing. (http://forum.notebookreview.com/fujitsu/115895-hidden-mic.html) Most just want to get them working. And some have.

[furface]

If you're worried about privacy, you might consider that RPF uses Google Analytics, one of the most intrusive forms of privacy invasions on the Internet. The widespread use of GA basically gives Google, and thus US jurisdiction governments a highly detailed report of your browsing habits all in a single location.

I understand Josh's reason for using them. Perhaps there may be alternatives to GA in the future. Who knows.

[SimpleName]

All i have to say is, VLC is awesome. Love the thing!

And the Zune software blows. An awesome player with the worst software.

[specsaregood]

If you're worried about privacy, you might consider that RPF uses Google Analytics, one of the most intrusive forms of privacy invasions on the Internet. The widespread use of GA basically gives Google, and thus US jurisdiction governments a highly detailed report of your browsing habits all in a single location.

I understand Josh's reason for using them. Perhaps there may be alternatives to GA in the future. Who knows.

Google Analytics is easily thwarted by 2 entries in your hosts file
(c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts)
pointing their domains at localhost. That's what i do.

127.0.0.1 ssl.google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com

[jmdrake]

A contract is an agreement enforceable by law. What the heck do you mean by a meeting of the minds?

A person agrees to terms upon purchase. If they do not agree to the terms it means they do not make the purchase. Now there is some grey area here on what is actually enforceable by law. I rather believe, right or wrong, that in today's world your argument would not fair well in a court of law, but good luck.

That's rather iffy. This is what's known as an "adhesion contract". You've already paid for the software, you're trying to install it, and "bam", you get hit with some long obtuse legalese "adhesion contract". At this point you probably can't return it to the store since you've opened up the shrink wrap already (many stores have a "you can't return opened software" provision) and you might not be able to return it to the vendor. So what else are you going to do with it? Courts will not enforce the terms of an adhesion contract if they find it to be unconscionable.

See: http://www.bicklaw.com/Publications/UnconscionableTermsandE-contracts.htm

California courts have been at the vanguard of deeming e-commerce contract clauses unconscionable and hence unenforceable. See Comb v. PayPal, Inc., 218 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (2002), where the court found that the e-commerce agreement obligated users to arbitrate their disputes pursuant to the commercial rules of the American Arbitration Association, which is cost prohibitive in light of the average size of a PayPal transaction. Accordingly, the court denied motions by PayPal to compel users who commenced putative class action suits arising out of PayPal's allegedly inappropriate handling of customer accounts and/or complaints to resolve their claims via arbitration.

There does not have to be a "meeting of the minds" for a contract to be valid, but on the other hand someone can't hold you to every arbitrary term just because they conned you into signing something. There's a Dilbert cartoon that I wish I could find that illustrates this. Dilbert answers the door and some guy with a clipboard says "I'm here for your firstborn son". Dilbert says "What are you talking about?" Clipboard guy says "It was in the EULA you agreed to when you installed our software". Clearly such a contract is unenforceable and should be.

[powerofreason]

A contract is an agreement enforceable by law. What the heck do you mean by a meeting of the minds?

A person agrees to terms upon purchase. If they do not agree to the terms it means they do not make the purchase. Now there is some grey area here on what is actually enforceable by law. I rather believe, right or wrong, that in today's world your argument would not fair well in a court of law, but good luck.

Dude are you dense? A contract is a voluntary agreement between 2 parties. Let me break this down for you.

1. Party A agrees to Proposal X.
2 Party B agrees to Proposal X.

The contract is now valid.

Proposal X is executed.


Lets fill in the variables for a real life example, shall we?

1. Vendor advertises $1 price to transfer ownership of his magazine to a buyer.
2. I agree to pay this fee.

There now exists a valid contract between us.

Execution of contracted proposal: I point to the magazine, he grabs it for me, I trade him the dollar for it, and thats it.

Not a verbal contract, or a written contract, but a contract nonetheless.

1. Could we have described the contract verbally? Yes.

2. Could we have described the contract with written words? Yes. (lol)

HOWEVER:

1. The conversation is NOT the actual contract. People can misspeak. They can accidentally say they agree to something when they do not.

2. The written words are NOT the actual contract. Words can be ambiguous. They can be poorly chosen, they can be arranged in such a way as to cause confusion. At best, they are merely a close approximation of our true thoughts and intentions.

A contract IS a meeting of the minds.

A contract IS NOT a verbal or written description of a contract.

IF I clicked through a software EULA that assumed I promise to give all my life savings to the author.....

YOU would want to enforce that, based on what you've posted so far.


The ENd

[Bman]

Dude are you dense?

WTG!!! No need to be Conza. Such attacks are pathetic.



A contract is a voluntary agreement between 2 parties. Let me break this down for you.

1. Party A agrees to Proposal X.
2 Party B agrees to Proposal X.

The contract is now valid.

Proposal X is executed.


Lets fill in the variables for a real life example, shall we?

1. Vendor advertises $1 price to transfer ownership of his magazine to a buyer.
2. I agree to pay this fee.

There now exists a valid contract between us.

Isn't that pretty much what I said? Now of course you may want to respond focusing on ownership, but I think it would be a bit naive to think the only basis for a contract is ownership. Let's just keep focus, we are dealing with an agreement.



1. The conversation is NOT the actual contract. People can misspeak. They can accidentally say they agree to something when they do not.

2. The written words are NOT the actual contract. Words can be ambiguous. They can be poorly chosen, they can be arranged in such a way as to cause confusion. At best, they are merely a close approximation of our true thoughts and intentions.

A contract IS a meeting of the minds.

So what you are saying is that a contract is nothing more than an argument on who is more believable?



IF I clicked through a software EULA that assumed I promise to give all my life savings to the author.....

YOU would want to enforce that, based on what you've posted so far.


The ENd

Not what I said, but if that's what you think....:confused:

The reason for the rule of law is to protect property. Unlike yourself I am not an Anarcho-Capitalist. I think you guys have some great points of view, but I separate on privatizing rule of law. I think there are some good cases presented against IP, I also think saying it shouldn't exist and I'm not going to pay attention to any such rules is a checkers move in a game of chess.

[powerofreason]

You compared me to conza? Thanks, I'm greatly honored.

Not sure theres much more to say as I found your rebuttal to be quite weak. I stand by my original post.

[Bman]

You compared me to conza? Thanks, I'm greatly honored.


lol. I meant that in the manner that your initial rebuttal is an ad hominem. Not a valid argument in the least.

Regardless, since you're in Fantasy Land how about sending a post card? I hear it's nice there this time of year.