GUI With Ruby

[Chad Perrin]

Eleanor McHugh DE I. P.

EM> absolutely no need for attribution.
It's correct only for USA (and probably few other countries). In most
jurisdiction public domain works require attribution.

Oddly enough, licenses that include attribution requirements are legally
often very good choices if you don't want any attribution requirement.
By failing to provide any self-attribution in the copyrightable work
and/or the license, you end up requiring that all existing attribution
(namely, none) be maintained in future redistributions. Public domain,
meanwhile, makes no statement about attribution at all -- which can get
you in hot water if you don't provide any attribution, since it is
generally assumed that even where distribution is not controlled,
attribution is still necessary for an honest representation of the
circumstances of distribution.

 

[Chad Perrin]

Interesting. So in those jurisdictions a widely distributed anonymous
work wouldn't count as public domain?

If it's public domain *and anonymous*, one typically would cover one's
backside by attributing it to "anonymous" or similarly indicating that
the source is unknown. Anonymity doesn't make something other than
public domain, but failure to indicate attribution can get one in legal
trouble with even public domain works in certain circumstances.

 

[Chad Perrin]

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.

Neither am I.

Berne Convention [2] standing as base for international copyright law
(signed by 162 countries [3]) had defined so called "Moral Rights"
[2.1]. This rights are independent from author's rights to sell,
modify and so on ("economical rights") which she can pass to other
entities.

Moral Rights are assigned automatically by the fact of creating an
artistic work. By creating you receive right "to claim authorship of
the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other
modification <...> the said work <...>" [2.1]. This rights are
inalienable: you can't reject to be under protection. US has neglected
concept of inalienable Moral Rights.

Only insofar as the Berne Convention applies this concept of "Moral
Rights" to copyright law. Considering that I reject the notion of
copyright as having anything to do with morality, I don't have a problem
with that. Only attribution rights would qualify, in my estimation, as
being related to an "inalienable right".

 

[Chad Perrin]

I am quite surprised to hear that from you. I always have seen you as
a practical guy and I intend that as a compliment.
Now the exact wording of your licence simply means that someone can
take your code away from you (theoretically not because you can prove
prior art by definition) but you might need a lawyer etc.

I feel that the GPL is not *easy* to use but I also feel that it is
important.
I am nervous about the BSD or Ruby licence, although they are
convenient for sure - in the short run.
I have the feeling that they are naive and that the wonderful things
they do not really
protect might be taken away from the community one day.

But I am quite a pessimist.

Optimist: the glass is half full
Pessimist: the glass is half empty
Cynic: the glass is half empty, but it's probably not something you
wanted to drink anyway

I'm a cynic, according to my own definition: an optimist that has
learned from life experience. I am concerned with the notion that the
BSD license doesn't ensure that we will always have source code
available to us when we get the binary. On the other hand, I am *more*
concerned that the *forced distribution of source code* mandated by the
GPL is actually more restrictive in practice. For one thing, it
prevents anyone that didn't have the foresight to get the source at the
same time as the binaries from redistributing the binaries in his or her
possession, unless he or she can still find the source. For another, it
requires, in many cases, for those with limited resources to choose
between maintaining an archive of source code with redundant backups for
several years after distributing binaries, or simply not distributing.

I definitely prefer the BSD license. It would be better to have access
to a binary with no source than neither (to compare worst-case
scenarios).

Of course, I find both annoyingly limited in applicability to a single
form of copyrightable work, and the BSD license's applicability to
derivative works is ambiguous. I still prefer the BSD license over the
GPL, especially considering recent examples of the FSF threatening legal
action against small community Linux distributions for debatable
violations of GPL terms.

 

[M. Edward (Ed) Borasky]

I am quite surprised to hear that from you. I always have seen you as
a practical guy and I intend that as a compliment.
Now the exact wording of your licence simply means that someone can
take your code away from you (theoretically not because you can prove
prior art by definition) but you might need a lawyer etc.

That's what I meant. It's a statement that I *can't* prevent someone
from taking it away from me. If I want to keep my code to myself, I can
do that simply by keeping it to myself. If I want to give it away, I'll
give it away. What I *can't* do is give someone else's intellectual
property away.

I feel that the GPL is not *easy* to use but I also feel that it is
important.
I am nervous about the BSD or Ruby licence, although they are
convenient for sure - in the short run.
I have the feeling that they are naive and that the wonderful things
they do not really
protect might be taken away from the community one day.

But I am quite a pessimist.

Well, in the specific case of Ruby, I don't think it will be "taken
away" so much as it will be "purchased." My license says essentially,
"Here is this idea I had expressed in software. If you are willing to do
the work to make a business out of it, great, I don't expect anything in
return for it."

Then again, I've been programming a long time, and intend to keep doing
it till they pry my cold dead fingers off the keyboard. (Unless, of
course, I figure out a way to turn thought directly into code without
requiring tongues or fingers. *That* I might not give away. )

 

[Eleanor McHugh]

To be honest, in the U.S. I would not consider anonymous works to
be in the public domain unless there was some very visible and
carefully worded statement that the work was in the public domain,
such as seen here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
publicdomain/. The reason is that in the U.S. all "creative" works
(including software) are automatically protected by copyright, even
if the copyright holder is not known. This of course produces huge
numbers of abandoned works that can't be used and is amazingly
stupid, but it's the law.

Well you learn something new every day
I must find out if the situation is similar here in the UK.


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains

 

[Eleanor McHugh]

Well, in the specific case of Ruby, I don't think it will be "taken
away" so much as it will be "purchased." My license says
essentially, "Here is this idea I had expressed in software. If you
are willing to do the work to make a business out of it, great, I
don't expect anything in return for it."

Then again, I've been programming a long time, and intend to keep
doing it till they pry my cold dead fingers off the keyboard.
(Unless, of course, I figure out a way to turn thought directly
into code without requiring tongues or fingers. *That* I might not
give away. )

I must admit that I don't have any interest in my 'old' code at all,
so the thought of other people running off with it and doing their
own thing really doesn't bother me. Been there, done that, bored now.
If someone can figure out a way of making millions off some random
crufty code I threw together as a quick hack one Saturday then good
luck to them

The couple of open-source projects I'm currently trying to get up and
running are BSD licensed for the simple reason that the people
they're targeted at are generally BSD-license friendly, but all the
commercial code I've written has been locked under proprietary
licenses and if I ever had to do anything similar in the future, well
a good clean-room rewrite would be a blessing in disguise.


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains

 

[WoodHacker]

Just a quick question: I'm sick of using Command Prompt for my little
Ruby programs, and I was wondering what can get me started? I know that
I can use Tk, but that isn't very well documented in the Pickaxe.
Thanks!

No one has mentioned Gtk, which I'm now using with Ruby with great
success. I have not tried it on Windows (or the Mac), but I believe
it works on both. Gtk is widely used in C and very stable. I
have used about every GUI you can think over the years. I loved
FXRuby. I wrote an editor in it for myself until one day I upgraded
my system (via Gentoo) and all programs stopped working. Trying to
fix it proved so much work, I gave up on it!
So far that has not happened with Gtk.

Take a look at Gtk at: http://ruby-gnome2.sourceforge.jp/hiki.cgi?Ruby/GTK

Bill

 

[Lyle Johnson]

I loved FXRuby. I wrote an editor in it for myself until one day I upgraded
my system (via Gentoo) and all programs stopped working. Trying to
fix it proved so much work, I gave up on it!

Just curious, what exactly about the upgrade caused everything to
break? Was this as a result of the API changes between FXRuby versions
1.0 and 1.2, or was it something else?

 

[Robert Dober]

Optimist: the glass is half full
Pessimist: the glass is half empty
Cynic: the glass is half empty, but it's probably not something you
wanted to drink anyway

I'm a cynic, according to my own definition: an optimist that has
learned from life experience. I am concerned with the notion that the
BSD license doesn't ensure that we will always have source code
available to us when we get the binary. On the other hand, I am *more*
concerned that the *forced distribution of source code* mandated by the
GPL is actually more restrictive in practice. For one thing, it
prevents anyone that didn't have the foresight to get the source at the
same time as the binaries from redistributing the binaries in his or her
possession, unless he or she can still find the source. For another, it
requires, in many cases, for those with limited resources to choose
between maintaining an archive of source code with redundant backups for
several years after distributing binaries, or simply not distributing.

I definitely prefer the BSD license. It would be better to have access
to a binary with no source than neither (to compare worst-case
scenarios).

Of course, I find both annoyingly limited in applicability to a single
form of copyrightable work, and the BSD license's applicability to
derivative works is ambiguous. I still prefer the BSD license over the
GPL, especially considering recent examples of the FSF threatening legal
action against small community Linux distributions for debatable
violations of GPL terms.

I have heard of that and I was quite alarmed about it. I do not
however think that one should forget the importance of GPL and it's
inventor on the paradigm change in society.

Your points are very valid and understandable, but maybe the defensive
aggressive attitude of the FSF is nothing more than somebody wanting
the rights they are fighting for respected.

It is however vital to know how far they go for everybody before they
chose their licence and it is a good thing to talk about it often.

Cheers
Robert

 

[Rick DeNatale]

I'm a cynic, according to my own definition: an optimist that has
learned from life experience. I am concerned with the notion that the
BSD license doesn't ensure that we will always have source code
available to us when we get the binary.

Yes, that is a concern.

On the other hand, I am *more*
concerned that the *forced distribution of source code* mandated by the
GPL is actually more restrictive in practice. For one thing, it
prevents anyone that didn't have the foresight to get the source at the
same time as the binaries from redistributing the binaries in his or her
possession, unless he or she can still find the source.

The more I think about this though, I'm not sure I want someone's
binaries without the source. The thrust of the FSF and for that
matter the open source movement is *open source*, not gratis
distribution of binary software. Having the source available with the
binaries also provides for at least a minimal audit trail to the
licensing terms of those binaries. If you just download the binaries,
and you can't tie them to source, how to you as a user show that you
have a license to the software?

The real selling proposition of open-source is that it provides better
protection to the person or organization using the software that it
will continue to be available and maintainable. If only the binaries
are available, due either to neglect by or the future absense of the
distributor, this advantage is lost. Witness the recent suggestions
for a 'living will' for the owner of an open source project, it's
motivated by the same idea which is to keep the project alive past the
disinterest or the demise of the originators.

For another, it
requires, in many cases, for those with limited resources to choose
between maintaining an archive of source code with redundant backups for
several years after distributing binaries, or simply not distributing.

Or distributing through a larger entity such as, say, rubyforge or sourceforge.

I definitely prefer the BSD license. It would be better to have access
to a binary with no source than neither (to compare worst-case
scenarios).

Well, you can get lots of that kind of software from organizations

Of course, I find both annoyingly limited in applicability to a single
form of copyrightable work, and the BSD license's applicability to
derivative works is ambiguous. I still prefer the BSD license over the
GPL, especially considering recent examples of the FSF threatening legal
action against small community Linux distributions for debatable
violations of GPL terms.

Or one could view it as a wake-up call that keeping open-source open
requires distributing open source.

Of course that's just my opinion.

 

[Chad Perrin]

I have heard of that and I was quite alarmed about it. I do not
however think that one should forget the importance of GPL and it's
inventor on the paradigm change in society.

Of course -- historical context is important to understanding any trends
and current circumstances, and that context can have a continuing effect
on future developments.

Your points are very valid and understandable, but maybe the defensive
aggressive attitude of the FSF is nothing more than somebody wanting
the rights they are fighting for respected.

I don't consider forced distribution models that ultimately prevent easy
distribution for the least organizationally powerful to qualify as a
"right".

It is however vital to know how far they go for everybody before they
chose their licence and it is a good thing to talk about it often.

Agreed.

 

[Chad Perrin]

The more I think about this though, I'm not sure I want someone's
binaries without the source. The thrust of the FSF and for that
matter the open source movement is *open source*, not gratis
distribution of binary software. Having the source available with the
binaries also provides for at least a minimal audit trail to the
licensing terms of those binaries. If you just download the binaries,
and you can't tie them to source, how to you as a user show that you
have a license to the software?

How do you feel about people having a (legally protected) right to
distribute Linux LiveCDs without having to push several CDs full of
source code on the recipients at the same time?

There's a difference between downloading software with the source
available, then later finding that the source for that exact version of
the binary went away, and downloading software when no source is
available. I don't believe that conflating the two situations helps
clear up the legal ramifications of the situation at all.

The real selling proposition of open-source is that it provides better
protection to the person or organization using the software that it
will continue to be available and maintainable. If only the binaries
are available, due either to neglect by or the future absense of the
distributor, this advantage is lost. Witness the recent suggestions
for a 'living will' for the owner of an open source project, it's
motivated by the same idea which is to keep the project alive past the
disinterest or the demise of the originators.

In practice, the source of BSD-licensed software is as easily available
as the source of GPLed software, generally speaking. If the source
disappears, however, you now can't do anything with the binary at all,
except continue to use it -- and, at that point, you have to ensure you
don't accidentally "distribute" it sans source. That's my point.

Or distributing through a larger entity such as, say, rubyforge or
sourceforge.

True -- but if that's the option you choose, you have to stick to it,
and you then entrust some of your data security to someone else.
Sometimes that's an option. Sometimes it's not -- such as when running
package archives for a small community Linux distribution, or even just
for your friends.

Well, you can get lots of that kind of software from organizations
like Microsoft. <G>

Notice, I don't like worst-case scenario conditions. As such, I happily
use the FreeBSD archives. See how well that works?

Or one could view it as a wake-up call that keeping open-source open
requires distributing open source.

A social revolution loses some ethical purity when enforced at the point
of a gun -- and that's what the law is: a gun to one's head.

 

[John Joyce]

I don't want to start a war or big debate, but the FSF threatening
legal action against little guys is not good, they should be going
after bigger fish to pursue their goals. But the idea of forcing
everyone else to make free software is a bit extreme. GPL3 is a bit
wacked. I respect their place in history, but even reading the FSF
coding guidelines sounds like Stallman speaking rather than rational
writing. Perhaps his ego has gotten the best of him.

 

[Robert Dober]

Gentlemen

this is probably a really tough test for our tolerance.

I think that the problem of the FSF is that they needed lawyers and if
you are an anarchist like Chad seems to be and I am to some extent
than you are in big troubles.

The law Chad, is of course a gun on our head, but it is also a gun on
the head of e.g. Microsoft.

Microsoft would have destroyed the market already were it not for some
laws, I think we can agree on this, right?

But I think that the idealistic POV of Rick is a very important one too.
This is a mess and a mess which troubles me a lot.

But Freedom just does not come for free.

Cheers
Robert

 

[Rick DeNatale]

I don't want to start a war or big debate, but the FSF threatening
legal action against little guys is not good, they should be going
after bigger fish to pursue their goals. But the idea of forcing
everyone else to make free software is a bit extreme.

No one is forcing anyone to make free software. The question is
whether one who accepts GPL licensed software and makes derivative
works is bound by the terms of that license. The GPL was crafted so
as to serve the community and ensure that open-source software remains
open-source, and that everyone, developers and users alike get the
benefits of open-source. One of the goals of the GPL is to ensure
that anyone can run, modify, and redistribute GPL licensed code as
long as they accept and execute the terms of the license. In order to
allow modification (which would include, for example porting to
another platform) one needs to be able to get the source code as it
was used to build the program.

As a user, I WANT to be able to re-build the software I use. If
someone offers something without the cooresponding software, I'm leery
of using it.

So if you want to distribute a program without making the source of
included software available, just don't include any GPL licensed
software in it.

And GPL is actually less draconian for "the little guys" than is
popularly thought. Here's the section which requires source code
availability:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Section C allows one to proxy the source code availability for
non-commercial code, for a "little guy" who didn't build his program
using GPL source code. GPLV3 has the same language.

GPL3 is a bit
wacked. I respect their place in history, but even reading the FSF
coding guidelines sounds like Stallman speaking rather than rational
writing. Perhaps his ego has gotten the best of him.

The controversial provisions of GPL3 have nothing to do with the
requirement to provide all source of GPL licensed code with derivative
works (which has always been part of GPL), they have to do with
restrictions on the use of GPL code to implement things like DRM.
However, one is free to continue to offer code based on GPL2 licensed
code. One does need to read the license on code you are using
carefully. Most GPL licensed software licenses it under GPL2 OR any
later version, which allows interpretation using GPL2, but you need to
look for language which either explicitly licenses under GPL3
(probably not much since it's still in draft) or which has wording to
the effect that it's licensed under the latest approved version of the
GPL.

 

[Rick DeNatale]

How do you feel about people having a (legally protected) right to
distribute Linux LiveCDs without having to push several CDs full of
source code on the recipients at the same time?

That's not requred by the GPL, the requirement is that if you
distribute such a live CD, you need to make the source used to create
it available. You don't need to deliver it concurrently.

There's a difference between downloading software with the source
available, then later finding that the source for that exact version of
the binary went away, and downloading software when no source is
available. I don't believe that conflating the two situations helps
clear up the legal ramifications of the situation at all.

So stop conflating them, the GPL doesn't.

In practice, the source of BSD-licensed software is as easily available
as the source of GPLed software, generally speaking. If the source
disappears, however, you now can't do anything with the binary at all,
except continue to use it -- and, at that point, you have to ensure you
don't accidentally "distribute" it sans source. That's my point.

The strength of the GPL here is that it requires mechanisms to ensure
that the source continues to remain available.

A social revolution loses some ethical purity when enforced at the point
of a gun -- and that's what the law is: a gun to one's head.

Another way of looking at it is that the law is a tool for protecting
the interests of people in society. The GPL is carefully crafted with
knowledge of global intellectual property law, so as to protect the
right to distribute software with the assurance that others will have
the right to run, modify, and redistribute it in a way such that those
rights will be preserved.

And we've probably argued this to the point where most who hang out
here are no longer interested, if they ever were. ;-)

 

[Chad Perrin]

benefits of open-source. One of the goals of the GPL is to ensure
that anyone can run, modify, and redistribute GPL licensed code as
long as they accept and execute the terms of the license. In order to

That's kind of a facile argument. One could as easily say that anyone
can run, modify, and redistribute ANY code as long as one accepts and
executes the terms of the license under which it is distributed. A
Microsoft EULA can be inserted into that sentence -- as long as you
abide by the EULA's restrictions and the requirements of copyright law,
you may run, modify, and redistribute the software according to those
requirements.

In the case of the Microsoft EULA, you can run it if you've paid for it,
modify it if you get Microsoft's permission, and distribute if you
haven't actually opened the packaging. In the case of the GPL, you can
run it if you have it in your possession, modifiy it if you have the
source code, and distribute it if you have the source code and are
willing and able to provide source code immediately or (at the
receiver's option) up to three years afterward.

As a user, I WANT to be able to re-build the software I use. If
someone offers something without the cooresponding software, I'm leery
of using it.

So am I. That's sorta beside the point of whether it's a good idea to
enforce source code distribution.

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Section C allows one to proxy the source code availability for
non-commercial code, for a "little guy" who didn't build his program
using GPL source code. GPLV3 has the same language.

. . and if you receive a free Ubuntu CD, it sits on your shelf for a
few months after you've installed it, and you have a friend that is then
interested in trying out this Linux thing, you can give it to him. He,
on the other hand, either needs to track down the source code or burn
the CD, rather than just pass on the CD to someone else. So much for
"community".

The controversial provisions of GPL3 have nothing to do with the
requirement to provide all source of GPL licensed code with derivative
works (which has always been part of GPL), they have to do with
restrictions on the use of GPL code to implement things like DRM.
However, one is free to continue to offer code based on GPL2 licensed
code. One does need to read the license on code you are using
carefully. Most GPL licensed software licenses it under GPL2 OR any
later version, which allows interpretation using GPL2, but you need to
look for language which either explicitly licenses under GPL3
(probably not much since it's still in draft) or which has wording to
the effect that it's licensed under the latest approved version of the
GPL.

The "don't use the GPL if you don't like it" argument doesn't in any way
prove the GPL is any better. It just hinders code reuse. It's
irrelevant to whether or not the GPL is a good license.

According to the Free Software Foundation's list of Four Freedoms:

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access
to the source code is a precondition for this.

. . makes at least two things very clear:

1. The GPL materially violates the third freedom ("Freedom 2"),
because it restricts one's ability to distribute copies of a program
under certain, by no means rare, circumstances. Instead, one must
jump through procedural hoops or expend resources to get the software
into the hands of a recipient.

2. The FSF is definitely more interested in "freedom" than "rights".
Yes, possession of source code is necessary for the "freedom" to
modify the source code, if by "freedom" you also mean "ability" rather
than just freedom from legal restrictions. No, possession of source
code is not in any way necessary to have the *right* to modify source
code in your possession, and no, forcing someone to distribute source
code does not grant anyone any extra rights -- in fact, it limits the
rights of the would-be distributor, telling him he cannot dispose of
what he has in his possession as he sees fit.

I really don't see any particular need to continue pursuing this
discussion on this list. It's pretty irrelevant to Ruby. It would be
nice if, just once, a GPL advocate would admit that what I'm saying here
is true -- rather than trying to snowball people with phrases like "You
have the freedom to avoid GPL code," or "You aren't as free if you don't
have the source code," or something like that. It's a little like the
arguments for communism that go something like "How can you be free if
you don't have the freedom to make use of someone else's money?" or
whatever's in vogue these days. There are valid arguments for both
communism and the GPL -- but arguments like the above don't qualify.

A useful, valid response to my initial statements about the GPL, to the
effect that I'm more concerned with the restrictions the GPL places on
me than the so-called freedoms, would be to say that you're more
concerned with the restrictions on the distribution of source code that
exist without a license like the GPL than with the restrictions *of* the
GPL. Trying to claim the GPL doesn't really restrict you in any
meaningful way, or that the restrictions are for my own good, don't cut
it -- as I've tried to point out.

All you really need to do to refute my argument is tell me that you
reject the idea that I have a right to dispose of what's in my
possession as I see fit. I'll disagree, but at least it will be clear
there's no common ground, which is a better outcome than trying to
convince me that somehow the GPL's restrictions on how I dispose of
what's in my possession actually frees me from restrictions on how I
dispose of what's in my possession.

 

[Chad Perrin]

No problem this can only be a healthy thing, stretching our tolerance as I
said.

It is normal that some rumors are worrying but what do we really know about
that threats?

Quite a bit, if you were following the news on the subject at the time.
I'm sure you could confirm the details pretty easily -- an FSF
spokesperson would probably even give you some official position paper
on the subject if you asked persistently (and politely) enough. Be
aware there'd be spin on it -- but I'm pretty sure you could pick out
the relevant facts. You could then compare it for points of agreement
and a different perspective with information from the MEPIS project and
other Linux distributions who have been at the wrong end of the FSF's
stick. That's all assuming that the information that was once online is
now not so easily accessible -- I know that at least one source of
information has been taken down (a MEPIS project posting about the
subject was replaced with GPL compliance FAQ, or something to that
effect).

I also think they should be indulgent but maybe I find time to research a
little bit about these cases and maybe drop them a friendly mail.

Excellent. Let me know how that works out for you, please.

BTW as Ruby can be licensed under the GPL this is all but OFF TOPIC, I feel.

Good point -- but I guess I can see the opposing perspective as well,
that it is sort of off topic. Sort of.

 

[Chad Perrin]

Gentlemen

this is probably a really tough test for our tolerance.

I think that the problem of the FSF is that they needed lawyers and if
you are an anarchist like Chad seems to be and I am to some extent
than you are in big troubles.

Heh. I'm not an anarchist -- haven't been since shortly after high
school, when I came to some conclusions about power vacuums, and
abandoned my previously anarcho-capitalist leanings in favor of a
principled libertarian minarchism (yes, political science is a hobby of
mine). I guess one might consider me something of an anarchist where
"intellectual property" law is concerned, though. If someone isn't
using or threatening violence, or perpetuating fraud, I don't think his
or her actions should be illegal. Period.

The law Chad, is of course a gun on our head, but it is also a gun on
the head of e.g. Microsoft.

A gun should be employed as a weapon of defense. When it is used
offensively, it is used improperly. That's my take on the matter. That
means that if someone employs force (physical, potential, or deceptive)
to enforce his or her will over your own, that person is acting in an
unethical manner, and force is an appropriate response.

I don't see that justification holding up for enforced source code
distribution. Since you started analyzing my statements somewhat, I
figured I'd offer you some more information on the thought behind them.

Microsoft would have destroyed the market already were it not for some
laws, I think we can agree on this, right?

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Microsoft would have tanked a long time
ago, if it weren't for some *other* laws.