I wonder though with the recent announcement of qt4.5 being dual licensed gpl/lpgl will the gnome developers be more inclined to use the same toolkit and create better 'cross platform' modules. Then we could have a gnome / kde environment on many devices and not only linux either.
It's great to have differing systems but perhaps the gtk vs qt debate is getting like linux / hurd type arguments.
I would kinda like to see some more projects getting together properly and having mainstream desktops like kernels, but at the same time leaving the ability for less formal environments and build systems to happily exist for those who want them (like real time kernel, se kernel etc.).
The only way is to work with nature in the way nature intended and that takes a lot of research planning and, yes luck. When it work it works dramatically well.
[ted.com]
It's just evolution folks ! were all just lumps of subatomic particles and so will these computers / robots etc. be as well.
If it brings logic to the world I for one welcome it, who knows the cost of either doing this or in fact not doing it. Its progress were built to do this, so lets get over it and make it happen.
Probably as Scotland had the poll tax first, then their industry (coal, steel, shipbuilding etc.) removed first and tested many unpopular political ideals first, as well as sending more people to war first, or perhaps having been forcefully exported (clearances).
Or maybe it's something to do with inventing telephony or television or penicillin or even starting your 'bank of England' or perhaps outlining capitalism, who knows ?
In saying all that though you can certainly keep your taxes and politicians etc. and we can keep ours as well as our oil, water, power and pretty much everything else we seem to provide.
Scotland IS a net contributer to the British economy (unfortunately in my opinion) but perhaps one day we will all have our way and this wont be the case any more. Were better neighbors than partners I think.
I am in Troon and also on aluminum, which is great for a seaside town (not). Perhaps it's best not to be first here though as theres mass changes in fiber end point technology which I think will dwarf todays capabilities. I imagine in 5 years you wont know the speed anyway it will just be subjective but immediate delivery of any amount of data.
I think you miss the point here, good developers who produce good products are not necessarily good support personnel, in many cases the opposite (as with scientists and breakthrough drugs etc.). This is my issue with a lot of Open Source models
On the other hand anti competitive behavior in any area of business (software, biotechnology, healthcare etc.) is plain wrong. There has to be a way to get rewarded, sure I agree and some more than others, but anti competitive behavior through ill thought out legal protectionism of this is daft.
Also I have no rights (and would want none) to decide on whats enough money for you or anyone but it is a principle I think we have wrong, money is a barter commodity (could be seashells) and if something or somebody soaks up too much there less to go around an pay the next innovator. Thats the last point there has to be a better way. Mankind depends on innovation and anything that stops this is wrong in my opinion, but the converse is true innovators must get a chance to capitalise (and hopefully innovate more).
Congratulations on employing 10 well paid staff this is a good thing and always should be, I would just ask you read everything in context.
I think what people are missing here is the smaller developers, perhaps not using GPL or OSS license X but instead looking to produce (or in fact just idea) some good product and sell it.
I often feel pure open source (whatever that is - here comes the bsd vs gpl thing again) and proprietary 800 lbs gorrila companies are at opposite ends of a spectrum. The wee guy always seems to loose.
Fair enough everybody patent everything - proprietary or the 'use for open source' people then game over the guys in the middle small companies and lone developers trying to get a buck from a great idea loose.
I 100% agree making money continually from a bit of software is screwed unless your always adding real functionality and innovation (and thats another debate). I also agree there should be limits of some description (I mean after you have a couple of million - how much more do you really need, personally). The main point is always missed, 100% open source is not the answer and 100% proprietary is definitely not. Good developers should get paid for developing not supporting so there must be an answer somewhere in between these two wildly opposing points.
I am not so sure, I know in the UK for instance the first thing searched on an application is the inventor and his site, then even google searches as well as a myriad of professional databases like IEEE. If any prior art exists (in the form of X or Y type) then you will not get a patent.
If your invention is not 1: Novel 2: Inventive 3: Industrially applicable
it will simply not be granted.
It is not perfect though but on the other hand it's not just as flawed and broken as is sometimes made out (even in/.)
Why not simply publish the spec in wikipedia and as many lists as possible (including your own web site). Prior art == defense in patent land, or at least it is supposed to.
This would appear to be a 'wolf in sheeps clothing' situation and a very dangerous one. A good idea for anti-patent people (and I have a few of these things and don't like them) is for the eff or somebody to create a easily search-able list of 'good ideas' top protect the ideas from being patented.
To stop commercial exploitation of an idea (like sticking the idea into an operating system thats very popular) thereby effectively banning all other operating systems or companies competing, is a completely different matter, and this is where defensive patents would help, but then you have to decide who can use the tech - and were back at square 1 again - very few people have the mental capacity to decide on this point.
Hi Bruce - Interesting. I have often thought about time limited licensing strategies and note the time limited GPL stuff about.
I see GPL as 'potentially' one extreme and closed proprietary as the 'potentially' other extreme and all others in between like muddy water (sorry).
I would love to have a license that allows freedom from commercial vulture types but at the same time allow openness and sharing whilst maintaining a developers right to compensation (selling licenses), particularly for very large projects (not support related pay - pay for work done) but be able to somehow limit this with a limited to X years/revenue etc. clause.
It is a quagmire so I am interested in your comment
"including the right to relicense"
what do you mean by this ?
Is it simply the developer can license their part with any license in the future but you maintain rights in perpetuity (which seems to make sense).
There is a lot to it, the video scratches the surface, main thing is an ID you own and control etc. If successful the money goes to innovators not me. Thanks for the feedback though, honestly.
Be Aware: I work in this company http://www.maidsafe.net/ which has spent a lot of time and money creating such a system for global use. It is getting close to beta testing now. It is basically a DHT with a self authentication mechanism and much more. Totally distributed network (although a commercial version is in the works). There are patents (11) to protect us (product and system patents, but please it's a whole other argument) and its not yet open source. The reasons are complex but never the less well meant (however arguable). We have over 60 investors (mostly local people) and are pretty happy so far with development, but we do need to make some profits to pay investors back. I own most shares and a foundation is being set up to promote innovation and fund inventors to bring good products to the market for the common good.
The system will be FREE and eventually open source when we get some traction, we need as many eyes as possible on the code:-). This is merely stage 1 and others will enhance this I hope to become the network of the future.
There's too much to explain but a visit to the site may help. Public launch should be March / April.
From a PR point of view how many new folk now know of the Nationwide - now news is bad news for marketeers. Sad but true - they state they will reimburse any losses - thats a good marketing statement - come to us we may loose your data - but we will cover you ass
I think CPR *is* designed to restart your heart if possible. A defibrillator - actually stops your heart and then restarts it in an attempt to bring it into line with a normal beating heart - i.e one thats not beating irregularly.
Basic CPR if theres a pulse don't start compressions you could kill the person, if the pulse is erratic you need a defibrillator. A lot of the new ones now talk to you and tell you what to do and will not attempt to shock a no pulse person.
Slashdot Mirror
(Anybody here remember BTOS? Yes and CTOS - arghh!!
It's great to have differing systems but perhaps the gtk vs qt debate is getting like linux / hurd type arguments.
I would kinda like to see some more projects getting together properly and having mainstream desktops like kernels, but at the same time leaving the ability for less formal environments and build systems to happily exist for those who want them (like real time kernel, se kernel etc.).
She is not my queen I am a Scottish subject! (ok kinda did not work too well for William Wallace either but the premise holds)
The only way is to work with nature in the way nature intended and that takes a lot of research planning and, yes luck. When it work it works dramatically well. [ted.com]
If it brings logic to the world I for one welcome it, who knows the cost of either doing this or in fact not doing it. Its progress were built to do this, so lets get over it and make it happen.
Surely these illegal activities can escalate or be backed by some pretty unscrupulous folks, seems like a good start to go get them now.
Or maybe it's something to do with inventing telephony or television or penicillin or even starting your 'bank of England' or perhaps outlining capitalism, who knows ?
In saying all that though you can certainly keep your taxes and politicians etc. and we can keep ours as well as our oil, water, power and pretty much everything else we seem to provide.
Scotland IS a net contributer to the British economy (unfortunately in my opinion) but perhaps one day we will all have our way and this wont be the case any more. Were better neighbors than partners I think.
I am in Troon and also on aluminum, which is great for a seaside town (not). Perhaps it's best not to be first here though as theres mass changes in fiber end point technology which I think will dwarf todays capabilities. I imagine in 5 years you wont know the speed anyway it will just be subjective but immediate delivery of any amount of data.
On the other hand anti competitive behavior in any area of business (software, biotechnology, healthcare etc.) is plain wrong. There has to be a way to get rewarded, sure I agree and some more than others, but anti competitive behavior through ill thought out legal protectionism of this is daft.
Also I have no rights (and would want none) to decide on whats enough money for you or anyone but it is a principle I think we have wrong, money is a barter commodity (could be seashells) and if something or somebody soaks up too much there less to go around an pay the next innovator. Thats the last point there has to be a better way. Mankind depends on innovation and anything that stops this is wrong in my opinion, but the converse is true innovators must get a chance to capitalise (and hopefully innovate more).
Congratulations on employing 10 well paid staff this is a good thing and always should be, I would just ask you read everything in context.
Only if you published somewhere good enough to be witnessed and picked up by a reasonable search.
I often feel pure open source (whatever that is - here comes the bsd vs gpl thing again) and proprietary 800 lbs gorrila companies are at opposite ends of a spectrum. The wee guy always seems to loose.
Fair enough everybody patent everything - proprietary or the 'use for open source' people then game over the guys in the middle small companies and lone developers trying to get a buck from a great idea loose.
I 100% agree making money continually from a bit of software is screwed unless your always adding real functionality and innovation (and thats another debate). I also agree there should be limits of some description (I mean after you have a couple of million - how much more do you really need, personally). The main point is always missed, 100% open source is not the answer and 100% proprietary is definitely not. Good developers should get paid for developing not supporting so there must be an answer somewhere in between these two wildly opposing points.
If your invention is not
1: Novel
2: Inventive
3: Industrially applicable
it will simply not be granted.
It is not perfect though but on the other hand it's not just as flawed and broken as is sometimes made out (even in /.)
We all know how effective that is .... or do we !
This would appear to be a 'wolf in sheeps clothing' situation and a very dangerous one. A good idea for anti-patent people (and I have a few of these things and don't like them) is for the eff or somebody to create a easily search-able list of 'good ideas' top protect the ideas from being patented.
To stop commercial exploitation of an idea (like sticking the idea into an operating system thats very popular) thereby effectively banning all other operating systems or companies competing, is a completely different matter, and this is where defensive patents would help, but then you have to decide who can use the tech - and were back at square 1 again - very few people have the mental capacity to decide on this point.
Hi Bruce - Interesting. I have often thought about time limited licensing strategies and note the time limited GPL stuff about. I see GPL as 'potentially' one extreme and closed proprietary as the 'potentially' other extreme and all others in between like muddy water (sorry). I would love to have a license that allows freedom from commercial vulture types but at the same time allow openness and sharing whilst maintaining a developers right to compensation (selling licenses), particularly for very large projects (not support related pay - pay for work done) but be able to somehow limit this with a limited to X years/revenue etc. clause. It is a quagmire so I am interested in your comment "including the right to relicense" what do you mean by this ? Is it simply the developer can license their part with any license in the future but you maintain rights in perpetuity (which seems to make sense).
There is a lot to it, the video scratches the surface, main thing is an ID you own and control etc. If successful the money goes to innovators not me. Thanks for the feedback though, honestly.
Be Aware: I work in this company http://www.maidsafe.net/ which has spent a lot of time and money creating such a system for global use. It is getting close to beta testing now. It is basically a DHT with a self authentication mechanism and much more. Totally distributed network (although a commercial version is in the works). There are patents (11) to protect us (product and system patents, but please it's a whole other argument) and its not yet open source. The reasons are complex but never the less well meant (however arguable). We have over 60 investors (mostly local people) and are pretty happy so far with development, but we do need to make some profits to pay investors back. I own most shares and a foundation is being set up to promote innovation and fund inventors to bring good products to the market for the common good. The system will be FREE and eventually open source when we get some traction, we need as many eyes as possible on the code :-). This is merely stage 1 and others will enhance this I hope to become the network of the future.
There's too much to explain but a visit to the site may help. Public launch should be March / April.
From a PR point of view how many new folk now know of the Nationwide - now news is bad news for marketeers. Sad but true - they state they will reimburse any losses - thats a good marketing statement - come to us we may loose your data - but we will cover you ass
I think CPR *is* designed to restart your heart if possible. A defibrillator - actually stops your heart and then restarts it in an attempt to bring it into line with a normal beating heart - i.e one thats not beating irregularly. Basic CPR if theres a pulse don't start compressions you could kill the person, if the pulse is erratic you need a defibrillator. A lot of the new ones now talk to you and tell you what to do and will not attempt to shock a no pulse person.