It's not theft. It's "unauthorized duplication" - believe it or not, there IS a difference!
Theft is based on the concept of a physical, material object, and removing the owner's possession of that in favor of your own without proper/fair compensation. The CD is physical - if I take your CD, you no longer have your CD. _THAT_ is theft - you no longer have your CD. I took it and didn't compensate you for it.
On the other hand, the audio on it is easily and infinitely reproducible - it can be shared, without depriving you of access to it. If I rip the tracks on your CD, you still have your CD, I just have the audio from it. The only restriction on this is the (completely abstract) concept of copyright - that the person who created it can (for some limited period) reserve the right of duplication and redistribution for him/herself (or his/her chosen duplication/distribution arrangement).
Yes, what is being done is probably not legal. But (a) a lot of people disagree with the concept of intellectual property (and IMO rightly so), and (b) if you wish to define what people are doing that is "bad", at least point at what they're actually doing, instead of pointing at something they aren't doing, in order to make what they're doing look worse. _____
C'mon, I think we all knew that. CDs cost what, about US$0.25 to press each? And a jewel box is (I'll be generous) US$0.25 - US$0.50 each. Maybe another US$0.25 for the disc face art (once again, I'm being generous here). Maybe US$0.50 - US$0.75 to have the insert material printed? (Keep in mind, all this is done in bulk - lots of thousands at a time) And if a band's lucky, they'll actually see US$1.00 of the actual shelf price.
I head the average wholesale price per CD (the price retail stores pay per unit) is about US$14.00 each. So, 0.25 + 0.50 + 0.25 + 0.75 + 1.00 = US$2.75. That's not much.
Yes, I know, there're other costs, but I'm just talking actual material costs for CD production. CDs could easily sell for US$10 at retail, and the recording companies would still see totally obscene profit margins.
Yes, I'm sure my numbers aren't spot-on exact. But my point still stands - any schoolkid who can do some addition should know that buying CDs is a ripoff, and that the RIAA member companies are who's bending us over. Not that they're ever going to DO anything about it, even if they admit it (like they should have to admit it - as I said, it's flat out obvious).
I just wish if I was gonna get fucked, I'd at least get a kiss first, y'know? _____
It's really no comparison, the windows installer is much more straightforward and simpler to use.
Yes, but (a) Windows software installs mess with the Registry, and gladly throw files everywhere, without the system knowing anything about who put them there, when, or what they do. They're just kinda there. (b) Windows tends to crash. A lot. (Yes, some people will tell me "but MY windows install never crashes!" - Sure, for different values of "crash" - but if you never leave your machine up for more than 8 hours at a time, you may be lucky enough to never see it.) All the changing of files, tweaking the registry, really messes things up.
Windows and MacOS may be easier for the "I have no clue and money to burn" set, and for them, well, that's just lovely for them. Those people expect a computer to be an appliance, a simple machine, when it's far from that. I can't do anything for those who don't understand that.
Remember, software is the most complex artificial construct we've ever created - people expect perfection from it, without understanding the complexity of it. _____
"[T]the list"? What list would that be - you mean the list of supported cards? Well, if you happen to have a NIC not on _that_ list, well, woe is you. And *DHCP* support? I do believe either dhcpcd or pump is installed as part of base! _____
Amen. I recently obtained a MouseMan Optical Wheel - I *lurrve* that mouse. Perfectly sized for my hand, and the thumb button is placed wonderfully. Works with X after a little custom hacking (well, sorta - can't get the button to DO anything yet. sigh). The rubber sides just top off a great design. Whoever designed it, give that man/woman a Ph.D.! _____
Yet again id software show that they have no concern for the moral welfare of children. But this time they have sunk to previously uncharted depths. The subject matter is too serious to feature in a 'game' (if you can call graphic portrayal of extreme violence a game).
What makes you say this? "[M]oral welfare of children"? How is that their responsibility? They make games, and those games are not for kids. What do you want, for Carmack to go around to your local computer software store, and stand in front of all of id's titles on the shelves, checking the age of everyone who looks at 'em? C'mon, give me a break. One word - parents. But then, that'd be too big an imposition on them - they can't actually be expected to RAISE the snot-nosed brats they bring into this world?
(Note, I don't think all kids are snot-nosed brats, but they're getting more and more common.)
It's time slashdotters voted with their wallets. There are plenty of games out there which do not encourage Naziism or Violent behaviour, and which are equally entertaining. Games like The Sims, Myst, Riven, etc I could go on.
How does this game, or the original Wolf3D, encourage Naziism? You're KILLING the Nazis.:P And Myst and Riven - all I have to say is yawn.
Games developers need to grow up and develop a sence of social responsibility. These games are turning normally reasonable folk into deranged psycho killers. Have we learned NOTHING from Columbing and Waco ?
Umm. You watch too much TV, methinks. It's been proved that there is no substantial connection between youth violence and video games - in fact, how about RESEARCHING it. You'll find that since the gaming industry has gotten big, school shooting incidents have gotten LESS common. The media just gives them more coverage.
And how does it have anything to do with Waco? That was a cult, plain and simple. Don't go dragging in completely unrelated issues! _____
Well, id Software isn't doing "Return to Castle Wolfenstein", just so you know. I don't know offhand what the name of the company is that's doing the game, but I do know that id isn't. _____
I suppose because it's a whole lot more eerie when the environment is dark - and it gives you an excuse for pulling the shades and turning out the lights...:) _____
If what someone else mentioned - that Microsoft didn't pay income taxes last year - is true, then what business do they have to say what OUR tax dollars do and don't pay for? Hmm? Even if not, should such code not remain in the public's grasp - even derivatives of such code? Instead of saying well, gee, the government already wrote [X piece of code], we can just roll _that_ into our product, with a couple little (incompatible) tweaks, and get filthy rich! _____
You mean glib, as in the base lib that Gdk and Gtk+ are built on? Or do you mean glibc? You do realize that both of these are under the LGPL, correct? And the LGPL doesn't require you to release code that links to it, only modifications specifically _to_ it? All you have to do (afaik) is provide source for any LGPL'd stuff that you link.
Don't bet on it. I don't think Microsoft would bother coming out in such strong opposition of the GPL, if at least a few of the corporate big men didn't think there was SOMETHING to be gained by it.
After all, we know they've swiped^H^H^H^H^H^Hborrowed BSD licensed code before. They're probably hoping for another source of code and ideas to tap, so that they can get all the benefits of GPL'd code, and take all the credit, without taking any of the responsibility. Are we surprised? (Answer: Well, I'm sure not...) _____
You have to defend it, you mean. And Linus is, then - he's just not getting uptight about it. From what I understand, his main requests are, in effect, keep it clean, and keep it relevant. He's not saying you can't use it, just use it correctly. Which I don't think is too much to ask. _____
How is Open Source a "failed philosophy"? Because not everyone shares it as their philosophy of choice about how software should be developed and distributed? If that's the only criterion, nothing is ever successful, because the entire world doesn't necessarily agree on everything.
And who said anything about the government being in the software "business"? The government may need to exert certain controls over monopolies gone amok (*cough*Microsoft*cough*), but I for one don't want the government controlling how I can distribute code I write. That's what Microsoft is asking for - for the government to say "Open source is bad, you may not use or develop it". Besides, who's saying the government should fund Open Source development?
Why is Open Source "communism"? No one's forcing it on you. Those of us who _choose_ to contribute and use Open Source/Free Software are perfectly within our rights to do so.
You're the one who seems to be confused. The Open Source/Free Software community may desire to see Open Source/Free Software everywhere, but they can't force you into it. However, Microsoft is trying to force the issue - the other direction. _____
How? How is Open Source prohibiting a business from producing their product, or owning their intellectual property, or making a sale? If they make a better product, more power to 'em. But some of us don't believe in the corporate welfare state that the USA is coming to be. We don't OWE them a profit - they have to produce something that's worth the money!
Just because you put out a product, doesn't mean we all should kiss your ass and give you all our money. _____
Read the ssh 1.2.12 license once. You'll find that the OpenSSH people are meeting the terms of the license. The problem is not theirs, it's Tatu's. _____
Well, Tatu also made the mistake of waiting a very long time to finally attempt to enforce his trademark (US trademarks are based on a concept of self-enforcement - you want it? It's your job to police its use, then). He also is making the mistak of selective enforcement. Other projects are using the 'ssh' term as part of their name, and aren't being bothered - you can't just enforce a trademark against someone you happen to not like, you must enforce it universally.
Also, lest we forget, the ssh 1.2.12 LICENCE file gives permission to use the term 'ssh' as part of the name of a derivative of his code, as long as it maintains compatibility.
As others have said, Tatu can go piss up a rope. He's put himself in a tight quandary, and now he wants to change the rules. He can't do that. _____
by going with Super Goliath, and paying an extra $450,000, Massive Enterprise, Inc. is buying insurance.
Umm. What exactly are you trying to say here? Better the devil you know than the one you don't? Bullshit. Or do you really think you're safer with a big company? Read that license agreement once - Microsoft's EULAs disclaim pretty much any form of liability. They allow for 90 days to return for exchange or refund if there's a defect in workmanship - but I believe it's their prerogative, and if they don't admit any fault, how are you going to prove a defect in workmanship, exactly? You can't really disassemble it, like I could my clock radio, for example, and show exactly what the problem is. It's your word against theirs, and without evidence, you have no leverage.
Do you think that Microsoft (Sun, IBM, etc.) would continue to be in the OS business?
I know Sun and IBM wouldn't - for companies like HP, Sun, IBM, etc., the OS is there for one purpose - to leverage their hardware. They are HARDWARE COMPANIES! Duh. They only provide an OS because the customer needs something to run all their software on. IBM in particular, is reaching out somewhat to embrace Linux - and why not? If they could get Linux ported to all their major platforms, that means a lot less code which they have to maintain to have an OS to support their platform.
OS development requires R&D.
That's debatable. The OS is there to support the hardware, and provide a common interface for applications (what users ACTUALLY care about) to access the hardware and do their jobs.
The internet was invented in the last 60's, right?
[D]ARPAnet started sometime in the 70s, I believe. It was the predecessor to what is now known as the Internet (capitalize it - it's a proper noun in this context:p). And why must R&D be done on something? The Internet is just a network - let the people who run the damn servers do their own damn R&D and provide the services (they think) people want. It's called abstraction of services. It's like applications versus OS.
And why would Open Source prevent R&D dollars from reaching companies who have a good idea? If they think they can build the proverbial better mousetrap, and they have the proof of concept to prove they have a clue, then by all means, let 'em have it. But Microsoft isn't building a better mousetrap - they're just selling the old one for a wad of dough, and marketing the everliving fuck out of it. _____
Well, read other posts about the terms in the ssh 1.2.12 license text - according to the license agreement enclosed with that version (the one from whence OpenSSH sprung - the last BSD-licensed release), they have the right to use the term SSH to describe their implementation, so long as it is compatible with his implementation. (Which OpenSSH certainly is.) But Tatu getting a trademark should now invalidate the licensing terms he used? _____
Yes, but Linus isn't submitting an IETF draft for a Linux protocol, and then telling people "You can't use that word!!!!!(@**$()*#**$)(". Tatu's selling a product called SSH, from his company of the same name, that implements a protocol (of the same name) which is an IETF draft standard. Why shouldn't OpenSSH be able to have a name that describes what it does? It's an SSH server and client package (i.e., it implements the SSH protocol).
As others have said, more eloquently than I, if he cared so much about his trademark, why'd he use the same name for a supposedly-open protocol, only to come along later, when a project that implements the protocol is moving along successfully (based on BSD-licensed code he wrote some time ago), and say "Oh no, you can't use that word, it's mine." Give me a break. He can do one of two things - change the name of the protocol (somehow, I'm not sure that that'll take) - or change the name of his company, and trademark that. _____
No, it was started by a guy for his wife to buy and sell some collectible (Barbie dolls or something?) that she was really into. The current president of eBay is a woman, OTOH.
I believe this is correct. I think there's info somewhere on eBay itself explaining the whole story, which you'd have to read for the real straight dope on it. _____
Slashdot Mirror
It's not theft. It's "unauthorized duplication" - believe it or not, there IS a difference!
Theft is based on the concept of a physical, material object, and removing the owner's possession of that in favor of your own without proper/fair compensation. The CD is physical - if I take your CD, you no longer have your CD. _THAT_ is theft - you no longer have your CD. I took it and didn't compensate you for it.
On the other hand, the audio on it is easily and infinitely reproducible - it can be shared, without depriving you of access to it. If I rip the tracks on your CD, you still have your CD, I just have the audio from it. The only restriction on this is the (completely abstract) concept of copyright - that the person who created it can (for some limited period) reserve the right of duplication and redistribution for him/herself (or his/her chosen duplication/distribution arrangement).
Yes, what is being done is probably not legal. But (a) a lot of people disagree with the concept of intellectual property (and IMO rightly so), and (b) if you wish to define what people are doing that is "bad", at least point at what they're actually doing, instead of pointing at something they aren't doing, in order to make what they're doing look worse.
_____
C'mon, I think we all knew that. CDs cost what, about US$0.25 to press each? And a jewel box is (I'll be generous) US$0.25 - US$0.50 each. Maybe another US$0.25 for the disc face art (once again, I'm being generous here). Maybe US$0.50 - US$0.75 to have the insert material printed? (Keep in mind, all this is done in bulk - lots of thousands at a time) And if a band's lucky, they'll actually see US$1.00 of the actual shelf price.
I head the average wholesale price per CD (the price retail stores pay per unit) is about US$14.00 each. So, 0.25 + 0.50 + 0.25 + 0.75 + 1.00 = US$2.75. That's not much.
Yes, I know, there're other costs, but I'm just talking actual material costs for CD production. CDs could easily sell for US$10 at retail, and the recording companies would still see totally obscene profit margins.
Yes, I'm sure my numbers aren't spot-on exact. But my point still stands - any schoolkid who can do some addition should know that buying CDs is a ripoff, and that the RIAA member companies are who's bending us over. Not that they're ever going to DO anything about it, even if they admit it (like they should have to admit it - as I said, it's flat out obvious).
I just wish if I was gonna get fucked, I'd at least get a kiss first, y'know?
_____
It's really no comparison, the windows installer is much more straightforward and simpler to use.
Yes, but (a) Windows software installs mess with the Registry, and gladly throw files everywhere, without the system knowing anything about who put them there, when, or what they do. They're just kinda there. (b) Windows tends to crash. A lot. (Yes, some people will tell me "but MY windows install never crashes!" - Sure, for different values of "crash" - but if you never leave your machine up for more than 8 hours at a time, you may be lucky enough to never see it.) All the changing of files, tweaking the registry, really messes things up.
Windows and MacOS may be easier for the "I have no clue and money to burn" set, and for them, well, that's just lovely for them. Those people expect a computer to be an appliance, a simple machine, when it's far from that. I can't do anything for those who don't understand that.
Remember, software is the most complex artificial construct we've ever created - people expect perfection from it, without understanding the complexity of it.
_____
"[T]the list"? What list would that be - you mean the list of supported cards? Well, if you happen to have a NIC not on _that_ list, well, woe is you. And *DHCP* support? I do believe either dhcpcd or pump is installed as part of base!
_____
Amen. I recently obtained a MouseMan Optical Wheel - I *lurrve* that mouse. Perfectly sized for my hand, and the thumb button is placed wonderfully. Works with X after a little custom hacking (well, sorta - can't get the button to DO anything yet. sigh). The rubber sides just top off a great design. Whoever designed it, give that man/woman a Ph.D.!
_____
Yet again id software show that they have no concern for the moral welfare of children. But this time they have sunk to previously uncharted depths. The subject matter is too serious to feature in a 'game' (if you can call graphic portrayal of extreme violence a game).
:P And Myst and Riven - all I have to say is yawn.
What makes you say this? "[M]oral welfare of children"? How is that their responsibility? They make games, and those games are not for kids. What do you want, for Carmack to go around to your local computer software store, and stand in front of all of id's titles on the shelves, checking the age of everyone who looks at 'em? C'mon, give me a break. One word - parents. But then, that'd be too big an imposition on them - they can't actually be expected to RAISE the snot-nosed brats they bring into this world?
(Note, I don't think all kids are snot-nosed brats, but they're getting more and more common.)
It's time slashdotters voted with their wallets. There are plenty of games out there which do not encourage Naziism or Violent behaviour, and which are equally entertaining. Games like The Sims, Myst, Riven, etc I could go on.
How does this game, or the original Wolf3D, encourage Naziism? You're KILLING the Nazis.
Games developers need to grow up and develop a sence of social responsibility. These games are turning normally reasonable folk into deranged psycho killers. Have we learned NOTHING from Columbing and Waco ?
Umm. You watch too much TV, methinks. It's been proved that there is no substantial connection between youth violence and video games - in fact, how about RESEARCHING it. You'll find that since the gaming industry has gotten big, school shooting incidents have gotten LESS common. The media just gives them more coverage.
And how does it have anything to do with Waco? That was a cult, plain and simple. Don't go dragging in completely unrelated issues!
_____
Well, id Software isn't doing "Return to Castle Wolfenstein", just so you know. I don't know offhand what the name of the company is that's doing the game, but I do know that id isn't.
_____
I suppose because it's a whole lot more eerie when the environment is dark - and it gives you an excuse for pulling the shades and turning out the lights... :)
_____
If what someone else mentioned - that Microsoft didn't pay income taxes last year - is true, then what business do they have to say what OUR tax dollars do and don't pay for? Hmm? Even if not, should such code not remain in the public's grasp - even derivatives of such code? Instead of saying well, gee, the government already wrote [X piece of code], we can just roll _that_ into our product, with a couple little (incompatible) tweaks, and get filthy rich!
_____
You mean glib, as in the base lib that Gdk and Gtk+ are built on? Or do you mean glibc? You do realize that both of these are under the LGPL, correct? And the LGPL doesn't require you to release code that links to it, only modifications specifically _to_ it? All you have to do (afaik) is provide source for any LGPL'd stuff that you link.
Of course, read the LGPL for all the dirt.
_____
Actually, Perl is dual-licensed, GPL and Artistic license. Just FYI.
_____
Don't bet on it. I don't think Microsoft would bother coming out in such strong opposition of the GPL, if at least a few of the corporate big men didn't think there was SOMETHING to be gained by it.
After all, we know they've swiped^H^H^H^H^H^Hborrowed BSD licensed code before. They're probably hoping for another source of code and ideas to tap, so that they can get all the benefits of GPL'd code, and take all the credit, without taking any of the responsibility. Are we surprised? (Answer: Well, I'm sure not...)
_____
Well, they ARE only in the 100-499 USD category. Not a huge contribution in the part of Bill & Co., if you ask me.
_____
You have to defend it, you mean. And Linus is, then - he's just not getting uptight about it. From what I understand, his main requests are, in effect, keep it clean, and keep it relevant. He's not saying you can't use it, just use it correctly. Which I don't think is too much to ask.
_____
How is Open Source a "failed philosophy"? Because not everyone shares it as their philosophy of choice about how software should be developed and distributed? If that's the only criterion, nothing is ever successful, because the entire world doesn't necessarily agree on everything.
And who said anything about the government being in the software "business"? The government may need to exert certain controls over monopolies gone amok (*cough*Microsoft*cough*), but I for one don't want the government controlling how I can distribute code I write. That's what Microsoft is asking for - for the government to say "Open source is bad, you may not use or develop it". Besides, who's saying the government should fund Open Source development?
Why is Open Source "communism"? No one's forcing it on you. Those of us who _choose_ to contribute and use Open Source/Free Software are perfectly within our rights to do so.
You're the one who seems to be confused. The Open Source/Free Software community may desire to see Open Source/Free Software everywhere, but they can't force you into it. However, Microsoft is trying to force the issue - the other direction.
_____
Umm. That'd be Sysco Foods. Not even the same spelling.
_____
How? How is Open Source prohibiting a business from producing their product, or owning their intellectual property, or making a sale? If they make a better product, more power to 'em. But some of us don't believe in the corporate welfare state that the USA is coming to be. We don't OWE them a profit - they have to produce something that's worth the money!
Just because you put out a product, doesn't mean we all should kiss your ass and give you all our money.
_____
Read the ssh 1.2.12 license once. You'll find that the OpenSSH people are meeting the terms of the license. The problem is not theirs, it's Tatu's.
_____
Well, Tatu also made the mistake of waiting a very long time to finally attempt to enforce his trademark (US trademarks are based on a concept of self-enforcement - you want it? It's your job to police its use, then). He also is making the mistak of selective enforcement. Other projects are using the 'ssh' term as part of their name, and aren't being bothered - you can't just enforce a trademark against someone you happen to not like, you must enforce it universally.
Also, lest we forget, the ssh 1.2.12 LICENCE file gives permission to use the term 'ssh' as part of the name of a derivative of his code, as long as it maintains compatibility.
As others have said, Tatu can go piss up a rope. He's put himself in a tight quandary, and now he wants to change the rules. He can't do that.
_____
by going with Super Goliath, and paying an extra $450,000, Massive Enterprise, Inc. is buying insurance.
:p). And why must R&D be done on something? The Internet is just a network - let the people who run the damn servers do their own damn R&D and provide the services (they think) people want. It's called abstraction of services. It's like applications versus OS.
Umm. What exactly are you trying to say here? Better the devil you know than the one you don't? Bullshit. Or do you really think you're safer with a big company? Read that license agreement once - Microsoft's EULAs disclaim pretty much any form of liability. They allow for 90 days to return for exchange or refund if there's a defect in workmanship - but I believe it's their prerogative, and if they don't admit any fault, how are you going to prove a defect in workmanship, exactly? You can't really disassemble it, like I could my clock radio, for example, and show exactly what the problem is. It's your word against theirs, and without evidence, you have no leverage.
Do you think that Microsoft (Sun, IBM, etc.) would continue to be in the OS business?
I know Sun and IBM wouldn't - for companies like HP, Sun, IBM, etc., the OS is there for one purpose - to leverage their hardware. They are HARDWARE COMPANIES! Duh. They only provide an OS because the customer needs something to run all their software on. IBM in particular, is reaching out somewhat to embrace Linux - and why not? If they could get Linux ported to all their major platforms, that means a lot less code which they have to maintain to have an OS to support their platform.
OS development requires R&D.
That's debatable. The OS is there to support the hardware, and provide a common interface for applications (what users ACTUALLY care about) to access the hardware and do their jobs.
The internet was invented in the last 60's, right?
[D]ARPAnet started sometime in the 70s, I believe. It was the predecessor to what is now known as the Internet (capitalize it - it's a proper noun in this context
And why would Open Source prevent R&D dollars from reaching companies who have a good idea? If they think they can build the proverbial better mousetrap, and they have the proof of concept to prove they have a clue, then by all means, let 'em have it. But Microsoft isn't building a better mousetrap - they're just selling the old one for a wad of dough, and marketing the everliving fuck out of it.
_____
Well, this _is_ a troll, isn't it? You can't honestly buy his line of bullshit?
_____
Well, read other posts about the terms in the ssh 1.2.12 license text - according to the license agreement enclosed with that version (the one from whence OpenSSH sprung - the last BSD-licensed release), they have the right to use the term SSH to describe their implementation, so long as it is compatible with his implementation. (Which OpenSSH certainly is.) But Tatu getting a trademark should now invalidate the licensing terms he used?
_____
Yes, but Linus isn't submitting an IETF draft for a Linux protocol, and then telling people "You can't use that word!!!!!(@**$()*#**$)(". Tatu's selling a product called SSH, from his company of the same name, that implements a protocol (of the same name) which is an IETF draft standard. Why shouldn't OpenSSH be able to have a name that describes what it does? It's an SSH server and client package (i.e., it implements the SSH protocol).
As others have said, more eloquently than I, if he cared so much about his trademark, why'd he use the same name for a supposedly-open protocol, only to come along later, when a project that implements the protocol is moving along successfully (based on BSD-licensed code he wrote some time ago), and say "Oh no, you can't use that word, it's mine." Give me a break. He can do one of two things - change the name of the protocol (somehow, I'm not sure that that'll take) - or change the name of his company, and trademark that.
_____
Scoop is Pat Lenz, the creator of freshmeat.net. Fool. ;)
_____
No, it was started by a guy for his wife to buy and sell some collectible (Barbie dolls or something?) that she was really into. The current president of eBay is a woman, OTOH.
I believe this is correct. I think there's info somewhere on eBay itself explaining the whole story, which you'd have to read for the real straight dope on it.
_____