I read a lot posts on the blog and comments lately speculating blindly about the actions of programmers. This disappoints me because everyone seems to have the delusion that programming is somehow helped by patents - and the other side (and who needs enemies with friends like this) think that programming is magically helped by the commities of Open Source.
It’s the East India Company vs Karl Marx all over again and here I am trapped in Europe wanting to find America so I can get some ACTUAL WORK DONE. Hint to all you people speculating on the evil monopoly of Microsoft: its not founded on patents, the patents don’t do anything! It certainaly isn’t copyright, because a vault protects Microsofts code from the destruction your moron eyes (and mouth) will reap. Copyright is just a bonus if any of you looters happen to open the vault. Personally I think Microsoft can live without, always having capital for developers.
As a software developer I would like to kindly ask you to actually do something in the industry other than read the press and occasionally download a Linux distribution.
As a programmer I am faced with the following choices:
-
Use a destructive copyleft that results in a program where anyone is free to add their own bugs, and I am free to keep removing them. Making the project as confusing as possible is an incentive here as it keeps drooling mongoloids who just want to add something to the community away from the scene and their bugs out of my project. Thus lots of that Open Source software you hear about in the background has obscure, or better, NO documentation. This is because a GPL adds nothing to code other than tenure, the grand title of GPL.
-
Use a copyright agreement for no reason as nobody is ever going to see the code I keep safe here on FreeOTFE or bitlocker. You are free to edit the memory space these programs operate in, the lack of freedom is actually a lack of knowledge on doing this. Open Source is another “hungry man is not free” Marxist argument based on the means of production. Most programs are written with NEW CODE so this argument is pretty flawed. If I don’t use Open Source, copyright is of no value to me in programming. Those laws have no purpose at all in programming and it baffles me that anyone thinks they have an influence. No, I, the producer who won’t give rotters like you his code has supreme influence. Deal with it or replace me on the market, abolish IP, do all those things, I don’t care I am fucking unstoppable.
- Actually enjoy programming.
See when I was a kid me and a lot of my friends ENJOYED computer programming. There are whole departments of lovable neckbeards at University who love nothing more than a blank editor and a compiler. You will find incredibly smart projects with NO LICENCE AT ALL, NONE, ZILCH, like freeotfe.org. There are many great projects that freely distribute their source code with no licence. Books are provided with pragmatic examples because these people specifically LOVE teaching programming and share source to do this.
A GPL is just status, and a patent on programming is akin to a patent on lego. Really all I do in the software development market is wonder if my work will be dismissed for no reason other than patents by men upstairs in management and legal departments. If programming was all I had to go by, I’d say abolishing the law would be a great step in my work. Abolishing the law would be great, because the men with guns could freely eliminate the people who produce nothing but a peice of paper, or well formatted text file, of a EULA or GPL. They would still need me to communicate, I’d be protected. and I would laugh my way to the bank. Fortunately, the latter I already do. Deal with it, OR WRITE SOME CODE.
There is no physical obstruction to writing a program, there never will be, so patents on software will always be futile and dumbass economists will always appear to extreme in their predictions of the horrible tradedgy of it all.
The fact is copyrights and patents don’t help me produce code. Keeping mongoloids out of projects helps team work get done on the Internet or any sitation where individual work is far more valuable. Your commities will never vote Ubuntu better, my future job at Microsoft or Red-Hat actually might make something better. Keeping people is out, off my damn lawn, that is the art of programming. Enjoy Microsoft Windows, you are free to write your own Operating System and better programmers than you have tried and failed in trying to do it collectively.
You can keep dreaming that patents and social cohesion write software. Richard Stallman is a terrible programmer, but you get tenure for working with him. So he gets all your work and you get all his tenure - enjoy your Open Source attention whores.
You can keep drooling all over a free market about a hobby (Linux) with no relationship to market forces except that I can get lauded for selling the free stuff it seems, and not producing, as long as I hire some idiot to do the producing and don’t do it myself. A cult of hiring incompitents, just what the market needed, and the biggest mistake of Adam Smith’s magic hand since it waved us the creation of the union is open source.
Enjoy your postulations about programming when you know none of the facts. Mises and Hayek will continue to spin in their graves about the children who never learned the socialist calculation problem properly.
IP ads nothing and nor does a god damn GPL. IP ads the great prospect of legal expenses, and with the way it works in software, the great prospect of LOSS. No matter what, companies that bury themselves in IP end up with unsellable products. The GPL ads the great prospect of more unqualified eyes so a group a retards can collectively make less mistakes. I’d rather just use neither and not give you my code, and clearly I don’t need to give you my code, or you would understand how a GPL is worthless already.