A research conducted by Noel A. Card at the Universities of North Carolina and Kansas, that appears in the September / October issue of journal Child Development, challenges the popular misconception that indirect aggression is a female form of aggression. The meta-analysis is based on 148 studies of aggression in children and adolescents in schools, involving on the whole about 74,000 children and adolescents.
Direct aggression is what we might call physical aggression, and indirect aggression includes covert behaviour designed to damage another individual’s social standing in his or her peer group. Based on the analysis, the researchers suggest that children who carry out one form of aggression may be inclined to carry out the other form. This is seen more in boys than in girls.
The popular myth that girls are more likely to be socially aggressive has been proven wrong by this analysis, even though it has persisted among teachers, parents, and even among researchers, probably because of social expectations and recent movies and books portraying girls as mean and socially aggressive.
They also found ties between both forms of aggression and adjustment problems. Direct aggression is related to problems like delinquency and ADHD-type symptoms, poor relationships with peers, and low prosocial behaviour such as helping and sharing, while indirect aggression is related to problems like depression and low self-esteem, as well as higher prosocial behaviour (perhaps because a child must use prosocial skills to encourage peers to exclude or gossip about others).
A couple of years ago Debian had to change the name of Firefox to Iceweasel because Mozilla Corp. was using their trademark to impose conditions on the software that were not restricted by the license. Now the problem is brought again to life for Ubuntu, with Mozilla forcing them to show an EULA before letting users start Firefox. Jeff Licquia explains the situation quite well, in any case.
At first glance, having to add an EULA seems a small price to pay, but underneath the obvious there might be something really serious happening. Software licenses seems to be just one of the possible ways of restricting users’ freedom. We’ve already seen some companies trying to use different methods to restrict it: via software patents, tivoization, etc. It seems we might want to add the usage of trademarks to the list.
According to the Free Software Definition, there are four types of freedom that users need to have to consider a program as Free Software:
- To run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)
- To study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1)
- To redistribute copies (freedom 2)
- To improve the program, and release your improvements (freedom 3)
In any case, nowhere is said that those freedoms must be given just to end users. Distributions and such must also have these freedoms, including the freedom to modify the program and adapt it to their needs, and their users’ needs. While it makes sense that you cannot call a program Firefox just because it includes 10 lines from its source code, it also doesn’t seem tolerable to try to use trademark to prevent you from adapting the program to your needs and keep calling it free. Is it valid that an organization or company tries to restrict that freedom for you by using their trademark rights? Should a clause preventing that be added to GPL4?
In any case, the final reason for the discussion seems to be much ado about nothing, as the EULA does not, and cannot, add any restriction to the usage of the program. First freedom (to run the program, for any purpose), remember?