It still is like patent time travel. Which you can't (Or you couldn't do until recently since nowadays you can patent anything), you can however patent your implementation of time travel. I don't know if Nintendo patent all use of hallucination in video game or not but reading the patent it pretty much looks like it (you have to have a sanity variable for the patent).
So where is the innovation? This goes under the new flanged patents where the defenders of the patent only can come up with "We came up with the idea". Yes, that may be true. But ideas (in my case time travel) isn't patentable. Or it wasn't until recently.
After reading your comment through and through I think we came to pretty much the same conclusion, but in different words.
I wouldn't go as far as to call it fair use though, I don't even know if companies/libraries have fair use rights (not being persons). The fair use rights don't extend down to the consumer with this scheme eitherway. Exactly like any other DRM scheme.
Doesn't copyright law only comes into play when distributing? As you say, making a copy isn't illegal. Distributing it is. Even in America (I'm european myslef).
The reason this DRM scheme sounds better is in the wording. You loan/rent, when you loan/rent you know you can't resell. You know you can't keep it forever. You know the copy isn't yours at all.
This scheme actully looks very much like other DRM schemes (like the one where student books where destroyed after the semester). The difference is that in that case it was labeled as "buying". Of course no such thing as first sale existed. I have yet to see a DRM scheme where you can resell the goods you own, and therefore I call all existing schemes as renting, and cheating on the consumer who thought they bought the goods.
I know there are some here who defend this with "you buy a licence to play the music", not a licence to own it. That may be true but it isn't in anyway expressed clear enough when you "buy" it.
I know it's trollish to say here but the font rendering on OS X is the worst of all modern operating systems. It's so blured it's hard to read (Not to mention that everything is bolded). Linux with good fonts actully is one of the best these days.
As for OpenGL. Nvidia hardware performs about 100% better on Linux that on OS X. Altough that may change when OS X goes x86.
If you need it there is wine for office productivity and photoshop for Linux too.
Re:...the same features we delivered seven years a
on
Windows 95 Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
The point of going with a virtual machine probably is the close to excelent hardware support of knoppix. That way windows can run on virtualy any hardware with no need for windows drivers (except for the ones needed for vmware). An extra benefit is the ease of encryption with the virtual macine.
A portable windows that is. No, it probably wasn't hard to setup but it does fill a purpose.
For the OSS community it would probably be better to have fewer licences though, this isn't some kind of EULA you can press "next" on and be gone with. To use other poeples source in your own codebase you NEED to know the licence and understand it, otherwise you can be acused and sued for copyright infringement.
As it stands know the big ones are GPL, LGPL and the BSD family of licences. I think most OSS programmers can grasp these licences and can use source from projects knowing they don't commit a crime. With more licences, even if they are compatible it's much harder to share the code because one may not have the time to read and understand the licence or the money to hire a lawyer.
That said. Sun have their reasons not to go with the GPL. They gave their patents away to CDDL licenced code, they didn't want everybody to have them. They should be free to do this if it serves their strategy best. But it also makes the barrier to use their code very much steeper.
how many folks will _not_ contribute since they want to stand clear of the GPL
Not many I would think, they can contribute their code with a BSD or even public domain licence and you can still use it in a GPL codebase. Or didn't I understand the problem?
First off, the GPL and any other OSS licences aren't for use, they are for distribution. If you don't distribute you don't have to worry.
Second, you need a licence for other peoples work because without it you have NO legal rights to distribute it. The GPL only gives more than what is stated in law. It should not be mistaken for an EULA which always takes away rights from the user, and mostly are not about distribution but use of the software.
You are talkning about illegal distribution which is only one side of DRM. Illegal use is another side which doesn't have a counterpart in the analog world because EULAs (and DMCA) don't exist there.
I can understand they don't want their work copied so the illegal distribution part of DRM is understandable. The illegal use part of DRM is totaly fucked up though. These books selfdestruct in 5 months?!? Music bought on iTms may only be played on apple aproved hardware?!?
Where went our consumer rights in this digital world? These schemes makes owning something of the past. Licencing is the new world order, or as I see it ju another word for good old fashion renting.
None of those are modern computers but more importantly, none of those are standard ATX casing. It may not be hard to do a fanless computer if you can design everything from scratch but Zallman didn'thave that option.
Apple can move fast and change directions faster because they don't have an installed base that would hate them because they twist and turn. In PC land this can't happen because too much money is already invested in hardware and software. What do you think would happen to the world economy if Microsoft only would release longhorn for PPC?
No, for the most part the PC isn't the early adopter but it does save lots and lots of money even if the system as a whole isn't as clean as Macintosh.
Don't you think MS and everybody else would have liked to change the 8.3 filenames faster then what was happening. It couldn't be done becuase there was millions of programs people relied upon that wouldn't handle the change. Apple whipes the slate clean from time to time and start over. That wouldn't be possible if Apple had 95% of the market insted of 3%.
Copyright is for distrubition, it has nothing to do with using.
Where do you want to draw the line on these contracts, should it be legal to have contracts on books (You may not read this book outside of purchase country)? Should it be legal to have it on cars (You may not use third party parts with this car).
Somehow when the transition to digital media took place ALL consumer rights went belly up because all digital media comes with extensive contracts on how to use them. Thats fucked.
I'm not trying to say it's the right thing do illegaly download music but p2p is easier than iTunes if you got anything but an iPod or don't like to play your music in iTunes. it just doesn't offer enough choice.
I would rather buy WMA music because at least the technology behind it can be licenced by anyone willing to pay. But as I'm a *nix typ of guy that doesn't really solve my problem either.
Wasn't there an article a while back how EU should standardize some kind of DRM? Maybe thats my only hope (I lice in sweden).
More mindbuffling is the consumers reaction to only being able to play the media on VERY limited range of hardware. Take iTunes as an example.
Apple DRM may be the least restrictive in the industry but you can still only play the songs on 1 type of portable player (And this is because of the DRM). Is that good enough for consumers. Maybe.
Example 1: Some random guy is making a gnome skin that looks like OS X, you would call it a complete ripoff of OS X.
Example 2: Apple is using the complete FreeBSD codebase as a base for a new OS, they tack on random parts of KDE for their browser, even more now when it's rumored to integrate SVG and DOM from KDE. Somehow you call this innovation?
Slashdot Mirror
It still is like patent time travel. Which you can't (Or you couldn't do until recently since nowadays you can patent anything), you can however patent your implementation of time travel. I don't know if Nintendo patent all use of hallucination in video game or not but reading the patent it pretty much looks like it (you have to have a sanity variable for the patent).
So where is the innovation? This goes under the new flanged patents where the defenders of the patent only can come up with "We came up with the idea". Yes, that may be true. But ideas (in my case time travel) isn't patentable. Or it wasn't until recently.
After reading your comment through and through I think we came to pretty much the same conclusion, but in different words.
I wouldn't go as far as to call it fair use though, I don't even know if companies/libraries have fair use rights (not being persons). The fair use rights don't extend down to the consumer with this scheme eitherway. Exactly like any other DRM scheme.
Doesn't copyright law only comes into play when distributing? As you say, making a copy isn't illegal. Distributing it is. Even in America (I'm european myslef).
The reason this DRM scheme sounds better is in the wording. You loan/rent, when you loan/rent you know you can't resell. You know you can't keep it forever. You know the copy isn't yours at all.
This scheme actully looks very much like other DRM schemes (like the one where student books where destroyed after the semester). The difference is that in that case it was labeled as "buying". Of course no such thing as first sale existed. I have yet to see a DRM scheme where you can resell the goods you own, and therefore I call all existing schemes as renting, and cheating on the consumer who thought they bought the goods.
I know there are some here who defend this with "you buy a licence to play the music", not a licence to own it. That may be true but it isn't in anyway expressed clear enough when you "buy" it.
I know it's trollish to say here but the font rendering on OS X is the worst of all modern operating systems. It's so blured it's hard to read (Not to mention that everything is bolded). Linux with good fonts actully is one of the best these days.
As for OpenGL. Nvidia hardware performs about 100% better on Linux that on OS X. Altough that may change when OS X goes x86.
If you need it there is wine for office productivity and photoshop for Linux too.
You should read up on D-BUS.
It's pretty early but it's already in quite heavy use.
Apple tries to dodge OpenGroups Unix trademark with "It's Unixbased"
Maybe these poor companies do the same, "It's Linuxbased".
Notice also how high definition == protected content.
The point of going with a virtual machine probably is the close to excelent hardware support of knoppix. That way windows can run on virtualy any hardware with no need for windows drivers (except for the ones needed for vmware). An extra benefit is the ease of encryption with the virtual macine.
A portable windows that is. No, it probably wasn't hard to setup but it does fill a purpose.
Macs were widely regarded as the superior game platform until Doom came along as a PC-only app.
Mac was no game machine even then. Amiga, Atari, c64 and even spectrum had better and more exiting games than Mac.
For the OSS community it would probably be better to have fewer licences though, this isn't some kind of EULA you can press "next" on and be gone with. To use other poeples source in your own codebase you NEED to know the licence and understand it, otherwise you can be acused and sued for copyright infringement.
As it stands know the big ones are GPL, LGPL and the BSD family of licences. I think most OSS programmers can grasp these licences and can use source from projects knowing they don't commit a crime. With more licences, even if they are compatible it's much harder to share the code because one may not have the time to read and understand the licence or the money to hire a lawyer.
That said. Sun have their reasons not to go with the GPL. They gave their patents away to CDDL licenced code, they didn't want everybody to have them. They should be free to do this if it serves their strategy best. But it also makes the barrier to use their code very much steeper.
how many folks will _not_ contribute since they want to stand clear of the GPL
Not many I would think, they can contribute their code with a BSD or even public domain licence and you can still use it in a GPL codebase. Or didn't I understand the problem?
No, the freedom RMS bitches about it the ability to change a program you have aquired. The GPL is only a tool to make that happen.
First off, the GPL and any other OSS licences aren't for use, they are for distribution. If you don't distribute you don't have to worry.
Second, you need a licence for other peoples work because without it you have NO legal rights to distribute it. The GPL only gives more than what is stated in law. It should not be mistaken for an EULA which always takes away rights from the user, and mostly are not about distribution but use of the software.
You are talkning about illegal distribution which is only one side of DRM. Illegal use is another side which doesn't have a counterpart in the analog world because EULAs (and DMCA) don't exist there.
I can understand they don't want their work copied so the illegal distribution part of DRM is understandable. The illegal use part of DRM is totaly fucked up though. These books selfdestruct in 5 months?!? Music bought on iTms may only be played on apple aproved hardware?!?
Where went our consumer rights in this digital world? These schemes makes owning something of the past. Licencing is the new world order, or as I see it ju another word for good old fashion renting.
None of those are modern computers but more importantly, none of those are standard ATX casing. It may not be hard to do a fanless computer if you can design everything from scratch but Zallman didn'thave that option.
Apple can move fast and change directions faster because they don't have an installed base that would hate them because they twist and turn. In PC land this can't happen because too much money is already invested in hardware and software. What do you think would happen to the world economy if Microsoft only would release longhorn for PPC?
No, for the most part the PC isn't the early adopter but it does save lots and lots of money even if the system as a whole isn't as clean as Macintosh.
Don't you think MS and everybody else would have liked to change the 8.3 filenames faster then what was happening. It couldn't be done becuase there was millions of programs people relied upon that wouldn't handle the change. Apple whipes the slate clean from time to time and start over. That wouldn't be possible if Apple had 95% of the market insted of 3%.
Copyright is for distrubition, it has nothing to do with using.
Where do you want to draw the line on these contracts, should it be legal to have contracts on books (You may not read this book outside of purchase country)? Should it be legal to have it on cars (You may not use third party parts with this car).
Somehow when the transition to digital media took place ALL consumer rights went belly up because all digital media comes with extensive contracts on how to use them. Thats fucked.
I'm not trying to say it's the right thing do illegaly download music but p2p is easier than iTunes if you got anything but an iPod or don't like to play your music in iTunes. it just doesn't offer enough choice.
I would rather buy WMA music because at least the technology behind it can be licenced by anyone willing to pay. But as I'm a *nix typ of guy that doesn't really solve my problem either.
Wasn't there an article a while back how EU should standardize some kind of DRM? Maybe thats my only hope (I lice in sweden).
Or like the rest of us he could have used a language which isn't dead and burried.
But this is just Man makes 4 PCs and puts hard drives in them
And if this builder had made an space orbiter you would just ask the question whats so hard about taking a VW Beetle and put a rocket enginge on it.
Clue, he did a fair bit more than what you summarized.
More mindbuffling is the consumers reaction to only being able to play the media on VERY limited range of hardware. Take iTunes as an example.
Apple DRM may be the least restrictive in the industry but you can still only play the songs on 1 type of portable player (And this is because of the DRM). Is that good enough for consumers. Maybe.
I don't think it's good enough for me though.
take the expertise and 'products' from the open source world and use them for innovation.
How can it be innovation to copy someones sourcecode?
Example 1:
Some random guy is making a gnome skin that looks like OS X, you would call it a complete ripoff of OS X.
Example 2:
Apple is using the complete FreeBSD codebase as a base for a new OS, they tack on random parts of KDE for their browser, even more now when it's rumored to integrate SVG and DOM from KDE. Somehow you call this innovation?
Open Source for non commercial use only would NEVER be an aproved OSI licence. Thats what I think.