Google Serves a Cease-and-Desist On Android Modder 336
Several readers sent in word that Google has served a Cease and Desist order to Cyanogen, one of the most prolific Android modders: his CyanogenMod is enjoyed by 30,000 users. The move is puzzling. Gizmodo wonders what Google's game is, and Lauren Weinstein calls the move "not of the high 'Googley' caliber" that one would expect of the company.
License missing (Score:5, Informative)
Google Maps, Google Talk and Gmail and so on require a license to distribute them. Cyanogen doesn't have one. Google C&D's because of that. Case closed.
Re:License missing (Score:5, Interesting)
There must be some reason why Google would risk upsetting a group made up, more or less, of self-selected enthusiasts of Android and its continued development, in exchange for no obvious money. Is Google confident enough in the value of its apps that it sees those Google specific apps as a future distinguishing feature for Android phones, one that OEMs will pay good money for? Are potential telco partners pissed that Cyanogen is something eminently worth rooting your handset for?
The existence of their legal right is uncontroversial; but I find their potential motives a bit baffling.
Re:License missing (Score:5, Insightful)
It's pretty clear that Google goes way out of its way to provide APIs and guidance on using its stuff as a third party, so I suspect that there's specifics in this C&D that aren't just "you used our service." Specifically, if they were re-packaging Google's logos or the like, then there's real copyright concerns there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm guessing it's like having a pickup game of softball at your local municipal field, and you get busted. Why? You need a permit. It's free and easy to get, but you still need to get it.
Google's saying "We ask everybody else to play by these rules, which aren't even onerous, so you need to as well."
Re: (Score:2)
Or a noise permit! >:) Having a noise permit for parties in highschool was (literally) a get out of jail free card.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:License missing (Score:5, Funny)
I can't RTFM right now - slashdotted - but the TOS for using Google Maps for example is very explicit and very limited. (You can only use Google Maps from within browser, and you cannot cache the images.) Google doesn't necessarily own the data; they have licensing agreements with data providers. So Google has to uphold its agreement with the data providers.
While I personally have abandonded using Google Maps for my project because of the license - something I find frustrating and disappointing - it is, after all, the agreeement Google must live by and enforce.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
i understand the bind that google/android is up against, and think it is terrible both in principle and in personal impact.
in order to limit copy-access to android app executables, android depends on sequestering apps in phone storage. while most app producers don't care about limiting access to their executables (apk's), some commercial vendors do. (some common evidence of this is the way that most apps are available for copying by android backup programs like MyBackup Pro, but some aren't.) of course,
Re:License missing (Score:5, Informative)
Like the parent said, that only applies to trademarks and not to copyright.
Re:License missing (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean trademarks like Gmail(tm) and the Google(tm) logo? Which are almost certainly being distributed as part of those apps?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean trademarks like Gmail(tm) and the Google(tm) logo? Which are almost certainly being distributed as part of those apps?
And, so what?
If I sell or give you a genuine boxed copy of Microsoft Windows(tm), what law am I breaking? And, if I choose to advertise the fact that I am selling that same product and want to use the trademarked name in my advertisement, Microsoft has no grounds to stop me. They can force me to specifically state that the name is trademarked by them, but that's all.
Trademark exists not to protect businesses, but to protect consumers. That way, you know that if it says "Microsoft" or "Sony" or "Intel", o
Re: (Score:2)
Hey I know a genuine Penephonics when I see one.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The word you're looking for is Panaphonics [tumblr.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If I sell or give you a genuine boxed copy of Microsoft Windows(tm), what law am I breaking?
Possibly none. Microsoft might have a different opinion on the matter.
But these guys aren't selling you a genuine boxed copy of the Google apps. They're selling you unlicensed copies which carry the Google trade dress, including logos and other collateral.
You say, "So what? They're the same apps" -- which is exactly why trademark exists in the first place. Because it has registered trademarks, only Google is permitted to conduct trade using those marks. It doesn't matter if the binaries are bit-for-bit iden
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Trademarks have nothing to do with distribution, or at least not in the way you think.
If I buy a Nike T-Shirt. It has a Nike logo on it. If I sell it to you, did I just commit trademark infringement? No? Why not?
I can write Gmail, Gmail, Gmail all day long and Google can't sue me so long as I'm referring to Google's product and I'm not using it to imply that I am the provider of or affiliated with Gmail or Google in any way.
Now if the binaries are modified in anyway, they are NOT Gmail and Google Maps an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh?
So I buy a Chevy car, put a "Breasts Not Bombs" bumper sticker on it, then either sell the car or give it away. According to you, what I've just done is made it appear the slogan is from Chevy, or it's reasonable to assume people could be confused by i
Re: (Score:2)
Laches might still apply.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That's only for trademarks. Copyright and patents doesn't require defending hence why you see patent trolls wait until a product is well-entrentched before they sue them for "damages."
I can understand Google's viewpoint on this. Assuming Cyanogen wants to continue to distribute the programs, they can always just go through the proper channels first. Then they would have a stance if Google was being slow or rejected them. It's really an issue of google protecting themselves. They probably want to avoid legal
Re: (Score:2)
Makes sense. Cyanogen should stop shipping with those apps. They are available in the Market anyway. Everyone is happy.
I just got a MyTouch 3g and have yet to root it. I hope Cyanogen is still around when I get the time. I want tether!
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
In some cases, failure to sufficiently defend one's rights to some IP (intellectual property) results in the inability to defend it in the future. I.e. If Google gets in the habit of knowingly allowing re-distribution of their applications with out a license, they set free any right to enforce the copyright in the future.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this guy distributing the modded ROM and not a patch for the ROM? Surely if you're capable enough to change the ROM on your phone, you're capable of applying a patch first.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is evil (Score:3, Insightful)
"Case closed."
Indeed. They are evil.
Re:License missing (Score:4, Funny)
Do no evil? (Score:2)
Apparently they have C&D'd Slashdot as well since it's acting flakey today and yesterday.
This is another reason why we want/need an open design to many of our gadgets. We're relying too much on them but only one big corporation has full control over them. Same goes for Google Docs. If Google decides to pull the plug on any of their systems, you lose.
Re: (Score:2)
You will never mitigate all the risks... but instead of me worrying about DNS, Hosting/Colo, the code, the server(s), the disk space, the db, the backups, and on and on and on... I have outsourced those worries to google in return for a s
Re:Do no evil? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong end. When you're talking about something that needs to use a network to be useful, you've got to start at the network. The device is the LEAST important part. As long as the phone company gets to say what does or does not run on their network the devices will do what they need to meet those requirements.
It's kind of funny actually - Apple releases a closed phone but doesn't sick the lawyers on any of the hackers. Google releases an "open" phone but does sick the lawyers on the hackers.
Re:Do no evil? (Score:5, Interesting)
What's even more funny is that Microsoft, a company hardly synonymous with openness, has long tolerated ROM modders doing the exact same thing on Windows Mobile. Heck, it's far more extreme, as ROM modders on Windows Mobile have been building ROMs off of unreleased versions of WinMo 6.5.1 and including things like Microsoft Office for WinMo in its entirety, and Microsoft hasn't complained.
Meanwhile, the self-annointed Do-No-Evil Google with its open Android system is releasing the lawyers.
When both Apple and Microsoft are more open than you are, even only about a certain aspect of your product, that's not a good sign. It's sad, but Windows Mobile is really the most open mainstream mobile OS out there these days.
Le Shocque! (Score:5, Insightful)
Google a giant company, not your BFF.
Film at 11.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you're joking, but that may come as a surprise to a lot of people.
Re:Le Shocque! (Score:5, Interesting)
I think google needs to review its own corporate philosophy again. The "Ten things we know to be true" page apparently is just a sort-of loose guide line and not a hard list of rules:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/tenthings.html/ [google.com]
Rules 1, 4 & 6 especially appear to be mere lip-service for us puny consumers to follow, not really applicable to google. I also again reiterate my belief, as mistaken it may be, that in a lot of these cases its possible that the retained corporate lawyer stable is justifying its existence by exercising corporate rights that may actually not be in the best interest of the corp.
Re: (Score:2)
#2 made me laugh. What don't they have their hand in these days? I miss Google when it was just a damned good search engine. Now they're trying to be the Microsoft of the internet and being mediocre at a lot of it.
Re:Le Shocque! (Score:4, Funny)
Google a giant company, not your BFF.
That's ok, I already have Facebook as my BFF.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet people somehow manage to deceive themselves into thinking they'll be better about these things than Apple. At least with an Apple device you get to look trendy while being fucked over.
Re: (Score:2)
Google a giant company, not your BFF.
Film at 11.
So you're saying this is no BFD?
What is confusing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Leaving this issue aside, it does seem that Android is not the open savior that every thought it might be. Given that for a cell phone to work it must have towers, and that the towers are controlled by private enterprise in search of profit, and that large firms tend to sue each other as part of the competitive process, any completely open phone is unlikely to thrive in the marketplace. If google were no a commodity vendor, then I would say that an open phone might work. But given they want tens of millions of customers, there is going to be a compromise of open software and control.
Are they actually modified? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me that the most reasonable compromise, for all involved, is for Google to allow redistribution without modification of their closed source software. Yes, Google has the legal right to make cyanogen stop distributing, but how does that benefit Google? Lots of 'proprietary' software are distributed as .zip or .exe files which the license allows you to make verbatim copies of. This is slightly different, because the software is incorporated as part of a ROM image, but as long as the software inside the ROM image isn't modified, Google should just let him distribute. He's not hurting them in any real way.
Re: (Score:2)
Google might be using third party technology which Google is unable to license to others to redistribute. By not enforcing this, they may lose the ability to continue to use it themselves and would have to remove these apps permanently from the market.
Of course, all that's based on assumptions like every other post here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What happens if Cyanogen, or some other person, decided to modify the Talk so that all numbers dialed were reported to third party advertisers?
Wouldn't Google appreciate reports of every number dialed via Talk? Or do they not count as third party?
Simplish solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop distributing those apps in the ROM!
Add an app to retrieve them from the original (backup) version of the phone.
SafeTex [imarvintpa.com]: Copying copyrighted textures from original Quake to custom commercial levels without incident. IE Don't distribute what's already there.
IMarv
say what? (Score:4, Interesting)
"not of the high Googley' caliber"
Does anyone really believe that Google is the "do no evil" company that it used to be, pre-IPO? It has become just as suspect as any big company. The bigger problem is that people don't even see Google for what it is. It is like MS all over again.
OK. Just my $.02 worth, I guess
Re:say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
They try, they don't always succeed, sometimes they fail miserably, but they do try. Which is better than 99% of the companies out there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Does anyone really believe that Google is the "do no evil" company that it used to be, pre-IPO?"
No, I don't believe that, because they never said that
Their motto is "Don't be evil." There's a subtle, but I believe important, difference.
Re: (Score:2)
How about instead of running around screaming they are bad just they are incorporated we judge them on their actions?
Proves the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is sending a C&D because someone is distributing closed-source Google apps (like GMail, Google Maps, etc...) without a license.
This is why I want a phone that runs only Free Software in the base install. If I know that the base functionality is open and free, that means I can take that base set of software and modify it and distribute it to other people without worry of getting a C&D letter like this one.
Free Software licenses are a great way to CYA. Sure, they do a number of other things for you as well, and they aren't always the best at dealing with software patents, but they CYA a lot more than most proprietary licenses I've seen.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I'm so excited for the N900. I'm sure the base install has some proprietary stuff, but given the fact that it's linux, and the amount of control you apparently have on the device through nokia's flavor (maemo), it seems to me that you really wouldn't have to worry about this kind of difficulty.
So close... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is why I'm so excited for the N900. I'm sure the base install has some proprietary stuff, but...
Bingo!
I think that the n900 is going to have the same issue as we have with Android phones and the Pam Pre: There's proprietary software in the base install.
If the only proprietary software on the device is games or some non-essential application, then that's not going to be a problem. Someone can just make a replacement image for the device with those non-free apps removed. But if bits of the OS or base applications like SMS, calendaring, email, etc... are under a proprietary license, that might be a big b
Re: (Score:2)
If looking at the N810 and the large amount of closed bits it has, then the resulting Android installation will be tons cleaner than the N900.
What Android really needs (Score:2)
...is an app that disables the Android kill switch.
FREEDOM!
Heres my 2 cents (Score:4, Informative)
Cyanogen has been modding for awhile without any trouble from Google. Recently he released a rom that was basically android 1.6 in full, including the new improved version of android market, way before the rest of android users will get it. I think thats what Google is mostly bent out of shape about, hopefully they can reach some sort of peaceful agreement that allows cyanogen to keep modding. His roms are great and make the g1 a powerful device.
Lawyers against dev community == bad idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Bottom line most developers are going to care less about why google is sending lawyers after their community than the fact that they may have to deal with that crap if they develop for Android. Since there are groups producing similar mods to Windows Mobile firmwre, this Cease and Desist has the potential to make the open source mod community around android less vibrant than the community around the Microsoft's closed source OS. Which is a real shame.
If Google doesn't do some rapid damage control they're liable to find their development community moving over to other Open Source phone OSes that don't send lawyers after their development community.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Developers should care about why Google is doing this. How would you feel if people were distributing your apps or project without a license possibly in violation of that license? It's irresponsible of those developers not to abide by the licensing agreements. If these developers were distributing GPL apps without a license I'm pretty sure the FSF would be breathing down their necks too. It's a matter of respect and professionalism. Those developers are out of line.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But maybe Google should work this out instead of sending a C&D...
It seams to me as Google is trying to control how their apps are experienced kind of like Apple does it... And that doesn't really encourage community participation...
Anyway, I guess that settles it for me... I'm not buying an Android phone anytime soon...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This has nothing to do with developing for Android. It has to do with illegally distributing somebody else's software for the Android.
Any developer too dim to realize the difference between those two, I don't think I'd want any software from anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
It's strange. It really is starting to look like every major mobile phone platform based on Linux (OpenMoko is small-fry and still doesn't really have anything but developer toys, and Nokia's Maemo-based devices are almost entirely non-phone.) is at the closed end of the spectrum for modders/developers due to rampant Tivoization. It's a pretty big contrast compared to the Windows Mobile community, where to my knowledge, Microsoft and HTC have never C&Ded xda-developers, and I've heard rumors that ther
Re: (Score:2)
OK, a bit more clarification:
http://duttythroy.net/component/content/article/35-romnews/172-microsoft-and-htc-say-ok-to-xda-developers.html [duttythroy.net]
No support, but an statement of no plans to C&D the developers.
(translation: What the developers are doing is good for business and the manufacturers are being smart about it.)
not smart (Score:2)
there are tons of modder communities within the G1. To do this is not only a: a bad call, and b: bad for publicity neglects the fact that cyanogen can easily leak the info to others (and people can easily continue with cyanogen's work thanks to the apache license).
They were doing it the wrong way (Score:3, Insightful)
This is something that must be understood. Some "alternative" GNU/Linux distros out there love to include things like Skype and flash without any license. It is illegal doing so, and the reason most of the major distros don't do it. (Some of them don't do it because they don't like proprietary software, but most of them really do it just to avoid the copyright infrigement).
Re: (Score:2)
It is illegal to distribute closed source apps without the license.
Not true in general.
Google is even required by law to enforce its copyright.
Simply incorrect. You may be thinking about trademarks, and even then it's not phrased very well.
Some "alternative" GNU/Linux distros out there love to include things like Skype and flash without any license.
Name one.
A few details (Score:5, Informative)
From TMONews [tmonews.com]:
"20:03] google just cease and desisted me
[20:15] cyanogenmod is probably going to be dead
[20:16] i'm opening a dialogue with them
[20:20] no they are talking specifically about the closed-source google apps
[20:20] and how i am not licensed to distribute them
[20:20] my argument is that i only develop for google-experience devices which are already licensed for these apps
[20:20] so we'll see what they say
[20:20] maybe we can work something out
[20:24] maps, market, talk, gmail, youtube"20:03] google just cease and desisted me
[20:15] cyanogenmod is probably going to be dead
[20:16] i'm opening a dialogue with them
[20:20] no they are talking specifically about the closed-source google apps
[20:20] and how i am not licensed to distribute them
[20:20] my argument is that i only develop for google-experience devices which are already licensed for these apps
[20:20] so we'll see what they say
[20:20] maybe we can work something out
[20:24] maps, market, talk, gmail, youtube"
Probably he will have to drop those apps. This will make loading Cyanogen a little more difficult. Next, will Google prevent him from using those apps to test his distro, or will they make it impossible to run them under his ROMs?
Somehow, this is beginning to look like the end of Google the Nice. The beginning of the open Google the Evil.
Kinda sad, but now that Android is important, the game changes.
Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Open Source my ass! (Score:2, Funny)
Android never was open source. It did just look like it would be, to trick some into it, who you will see below, defending more the respect for their decisions than Android. ;)
And now Google shows its real face, regarding this.
Now I'm happy I didn't jump on that train, and chose Symbian (although still pretty crappy) as the main platform.
P.S.: Don't ask a free-thinking developer about the iPhone, if you wanna keep your head. ;)
So don't distribute those apps... (Score:4, Informative)
This isn't any different from the Second Life client where third party packagers have to leave out certain closed-source components that Linden Lab uses. When you use them, you take the SL client downloaded from Linden Lab, and add the updated open source components. Most open source clients include an installer now that copies the closed source components from your original SL directory into the new application.
"Barney Google, with the Goo-goo-googley eyes" (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm. The earlier poster who mentioned whether this was a 'Googley' reaction reminded me suddenly. One of the very first million-selling songs (sheet music) was a song written by Billy Rose in the 1920's, called "Barney Google, with the Goo-goo-googly eyes" [wikipedia.org], inspired by the Barney Google comic strip. (I thought it was the other way round, but never mind.)
This raises an interesting question - is Google's name in violation of the trademark of the Barney Google / Snuffy Smith comic strip, or the song?
According to the afore-mentioned Wikipedia article, there is arguably an indirect connection (through the mathematical googol) between the two Googles - if nothing else it's an interesting case of a word's spelling tending to gravitate toward a common predictable form - or something.
Hmmm.
Learn the lesson now (Score:2)
This is a serious problem (Score:5, Informative)
At least on the Rogers Dream (Canadian version of the G1) Cyanogen and similar are the ONLY way to run the phone well..
With the stock firmware timestamps are broken (as in text messages showing up in the wrong time zone, making the sorting of a conversation all wrong) and Performance is miserable.
By contrast Cyanogenmod more than solves these problems, transforming it from a badly flawed phone that makes Android look really BAD, to an excellent that makes android look great.
I'm not exaggerating when I say that, given what a poor job rogers has done resolving serious bugs like the timestamp one, I would never buy another android phone from Rogers, if I were going to be stuck using the stock firmware. However, as long as the modder community remains in play, I am a happy user who would be happy to buy a new device that came out.
I guess my point is, if google starts to shutdown the modders, they really are actually pushing customers (well, at least one) away.
It's because of the Market app (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, you're absolutely right. I don't know what Google is like, but there are some tech companies where the lawyers are itchin' to sue everybody in sight and they get held back by more reasoned heads until some line is crossed. IP problems vs. operational problems could be such a line - given how engineer-heavy Google is, I can see a culture that would have decided that trust among engineers was lost with the decision to distribute a private beta of a client/server app. Since Google isn't want to sue e
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Android itself is, but of course some software written for it can be closed or even, hold your breath, commercial.
Google Maps, Google Talk and Gmail apps are closed software.
And before someone jumps on the "but I want the whole thing to be open!!", its more open when developers have choices.
Re: (Score:2)
"its more open when developers have choices."
Not necessarily so for the user.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"its more open when developers have choices."
Not necessarily so for the user.
That doesn't even make sense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
THAT doesn't make any sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you were meaning to reply the parent post.
THAT doesn't make any sense.
Now even I'm confused!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
All the user cares about is data. If I can switch from your mail app to my mail app without losing my data, the system is open. However, if the developer has the choice of whatever mail format it wants, it's unlikely that I can transfer my data without issue. Thus, choice for the developer does not equal choice for the user.
Openness (Score:2, Interesting)
its more open when developers have choices.
All the user cares about is data.
This just isn't true. I have to invest quite some time to familiarize myself with an application and set my preferences, expecting to be able to use it in the future. With closed software, I never know if can do just that. A closed application may change in a way that makes new versions unusable for me at any time. What's worse, closed source locks me in, forcing me to eat all the little nuisances they decide to inflict upon me.
It might be a decision to abandon certain functionality (not supporting a certai
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm.. no.
It's an image. If your interpretation were correct redhat couldn't distribute an ISO of RHEL with non-GPL apps on it, devices with embedded linux would be impossible, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
"-1 false dichotomy. "
Re:GPL Violation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, wait. Do monkeys live for 1000 years?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, wait. Do monkeys live for 1000 years?
Hey, you could at least bother to read the RFC [ietf.org] before asking such a pointless question! RFC 2795 handles such things transparently. Under the hood you'd see:
BoBoSIM> SEND FOOD
SanDiego> ACCEPT
BoBoSIM> SEND MEDICINE
SanDiego> DELAY
BoBoSIM> SEND VETERINARIAN
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not, you dick. The freedom that matters is the user's freedom.
Developers are people to! And so are corporations! Won't someone PLEASE think of the corporations?
Of course, the user has the ultimate freedom, which is to use something other than the product which is not open enough to suit their needs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Did you read the article? It clearly says that its todo with shipping google's closed apps like gmail/gmaps/etc. The OS is free but much of the software is not. Personally it seams pretty dumb to stop people handing out your free apps, but it is definitely within their rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Once an android is modded, can't the user download gmail and whatever else from Google directly, for installation? I don't own an android, much less a modded one - I'm kinda ignorant here.....
Re: (Score:2)
For the most part, aye -- I know you can download Maps independently from the Market (have to do this every now and then for an upgrade).
I really don't see the big idea with this -- just unbunble the apps, and let's get back to work. You can use the damn web browser to access gmail on your phone if you need to, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I thought Android was supposed to be Free Software / Open Source Software?
The original copyright holder is not bound by the GPL as long as they are either the only contributor, have all copyrights assigned before a change is accepted or has agreement from all holders of copyright. The GPL only applies to other people who are not the original authors. But this is not about open source code but rather coded source google apps distributed with android.
Re:Capitalism means crisis (Score:5, Insightful)
Did your history book also mention that?
So, since ALL systems of humanity eventually fail, wouldnt it be more important to look at the quality of life that exists under these systems for the brief periods that they exist?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
quality of life that exists under these systems for the brief periods that they exist?
Ah... but just how brief are those brief periods, and just how bloody are the times surrounding the brief periods? It seems that communism tends to be quite bloody surrounding the "brief" times of peace and "prosperity." Incidentally, I'm not sure how many communist countries have been prosperous. For people other than the leaders, I mean.
And by the way, you're still going to have terrorists and the like, even if USA was communist. The current wacko Islamic terrorists aren't anti-USA because of capitali
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that communism tends to be quite bloody surrounding the "brief" times of peace and "prosperity." Incidentally, I'm not sure how many communist countries have been prosperous.
That's because none of them were truly socialist (using the "trying to do what benefits society as a whole" definition), but evil dictatorships that used the promises of Communism to seize control from the previously existing economic powers. For better examples, take a look at some European countries (and other European-style countries such as Canada).
Re: (Score:2)
using the "trying to do what benefits society as a whole" definition
There's a human-nature problem with expecting that. I think that's where a lot of "communism" fails. It's difficult to set up a system that deals with human nature correctly. Of course, that depends on what you think human nature is...
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I think fiat currencies are inherently risky due to the hig
Re: (Score:2)
agriculture - slash-and-burn - while not faded away, contains the seeds of its own destruction and is not practiced on a large-scale as it has been replaced by other systems
Language - latin - its not called a dead language for nothing. Replaced by another, and more efficient system of language
Writing - Hieroglyphics - Not around anymore either. Also replaced by a more efficient system of writing.
ALL of those things failed, and were replaced by other systems. The structure of the current money supply wil
Re: (Score:2)
Latin isn't inefficient; it's actually a fairly well-constructed language with far more logical consistency than the languages that sprang from it.
The point I am making, and that you seem to also understand, is that there is a fundamental flaw in the way that a fiat currency works in a society. That flaw eventually leads to its demise.
That's not a point, it's an opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Two possible responses to this:
1. WHOOSH
2. To be serious, there are two lessons we should have learned from the history of the past 150 years.
a. Communism doesn't work.
b. Capitalism doesn't work.
What does work is a system in which capitalism drives the economy, but a strong central government keeps the capitalists in check.
Re:Capitalism means crisis (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like China?
Re: (Score:2)
There was no "clear consensus"; most of the people commenting were new or low-volume users who could not argue for keeping the article ("it's good information" is not sufficient for a Wikipedia article to exist). The AfDs were clearly off-site campaigns. I've been around Wikipedia AfDs enough to see that this is no conspiracy.
If you can't establish notability, it's not notable, as easy as that. Saying that other stuff exists [wikipedia.org] is specifically not an argument against deletion.