As an AC mentioned in reply to my original post, and as I replied to the other similar response, maybe phpBB isn't the best example, it was just the easiest that I came up with.
A better example for AGPL is a real web service. If someone AGPLs a service to do some complex maths and you then improve on it and use it as a web service in one of your applications then it is only fair that you redistribute the changes since you're effectively using it as a modified (GPLed) library but without having to redistribute your changes because you're technically not redistributing it.
In that situation it's a bit like the limitation of not being allowed to use non-GPLed libraries with a GPL app (where you could slowly siphon code into a non-GPLed library) - you're taking advantage of a possible loop hole in the license, so GPL patches it by saying no non-GPL libraries and AGPL patches it by saying no using AGPL web services without redistributing modifications.
and why would you care about that if they did? What difference does it make if someone has improved their code privately (part of freedom 3) but doesn't want to release it? It has no effect on you, the software project or the open source community.
But it does. It has the effect that the project could be improved in some way but hasn't been, despite the fact that those changes are being used in a public (i.e. website powering) location.
When you make private changes to a GPL app you aren't forced to distribute those changes, only when you re-distribute are you forced to publish your changes.
Hence why I said "when you distribute the app".
..and just in case you mention it in your reply.. No, serving html pages to web browsers isn't redistributing the projects source code.
Quite obviously not, but at the end of the day then I think forum software might not be the best example. A proper web service is similar, but rather than just producing HTML output for an end user then it becomes an integral part of an application that you distribute.
In that case it is like modifying and using an LGPLed library but not releasing the source - you're using (L/A)GPL 'libraries' with modifications and so should be redistributing them.
Again, I'm not saying it is perfect for all web-based software, but there are situations where it can have its uses (as with any license).
Everything is brighter, clearer, and easier to access.
Is it just me or does the "brighter" part imply that we might be getting those awful "shine like its made of glass, covered in gloss varnish and polished to a micron-perfect smooth surface" effects all over the interface?
On the plus side at least some of the improvements (like resuming saves and better performance) might be worth it. Hopefully any uglyness can be styled away again. Native forms sounds like an improvement as well.
But there's always the possibility that someone will have a targeted ad that I might actually want to click on, at which point why should they get penalised when their other adverts aren't annoying and intrusive?
As for webmasters hosting their own, that should be a consideration they make when they host it themselves. I know that if I ever ran adverts on my websites (all six of them, all currently without ads) then it'd be something I considered was the number of times it would get downloaded without making me profit.
If (and it's a big 'if') phpBB were to use the AGPL then yes, those bullet points are pretty much what I'm saying. The theming might be different, though, since the theme isn't normally (AFAIK) licensed under the GPL. What I'm talking about is that this kind of license would ensure that all modifications should* be released in the mod area of the script's website.
As for open sourcing mods, I've already released several for Invisionboard v1 when I was in my teens, a couple for phpBB, I've helped fix bugs in phpBB mods, and I'm working on my own project at the moment that will be released as LGPL (because I want people to be able to reuse the backend library if they want). I may use open source, but I also like to try to contribute back where I can.
As I said at the end of my previous post, there would be some degree of putting people off if you required them to release their modifications, but at the same time it does ensure that no-one makes great speed improvements and keeps them to themselves. The same argument could be made for GPLing an application - any changes you make have to be distributed when you distribute the app, which might put a lot of people off using and modifying your app. People still seem happy to use GPL, though.
I'm not entirely sure where I wasn't being clear and where I mentioned the PHP language.
.
* 'should' rather than 'must' because if they make a sufficiently small change then it may not be obvious and people may hide it and pretend they never did it.
Say you've got forum software, like phpBB. Lots of people put modifications into it and lots of people release modifications. There are also lots of people who hack in large custom mods and gain from the phpBB base while not releasing anything because it is GPL. If phpBB was AGPLed then major changes like that would have to be released and so anyone modifying, for example, a forum script to turn it into a CMS would have to release their modification. That would then stop people having to re-implement the same CMS functionality just because no-one wanted to release it.
Okay, so it's not necessarily going to be a winner in all cases, and it may dissuade some people from using a script, but I can see where it might be useful.
Hackers are using deceptive practices and tricky Flash programming...
Not quite passive if they're using Flash, though. I'm selective with my AdBlocking because I know some webmasters rely on the revenue. Anything that's overly flashy (be it flash or animated GIF) or anything too large/overlapping/intrusive gets the page or folder containing the add blocked. If it happens too many times then the entire domain goes.
As for the drive-by infection, hasn't that been going on for a while? I guess it is new (and slightly ironic in a "malware" kind of way) to put AV spam and redirects up instead, though.
Never mind the fact that people don't trust ICANN to be in charge of things* then that implies they want it to be moved to some other central location.
If we put it under NATO or UN control or something then where do the main authoritative servers get put? The UN doesn't own any territory, which means it would have to put it in the territory or a member state. Either that or they put it somewhere completely neutral (middle of the sea?) at which point the connection is terrible.
So, while it might be good to have it under less potentially influenced control, where would it all physically go?
* which, TBH, if the US Government have a veto on them then I don't really, but that's not important
Even worse is that those automated pre-recorded ones don't give up either. You normally have to pick up and put down the phone multiple times before it finally disconnects!
Luckily, in the UK we have a "don't call" list and it works fine for me - no ghost calls and not even any marketing calls. I've just got to get re-listed now that I've moved house...
Okay, so it saved him $90 when he replaced some items, but how much extra would you spend on the new items that you wouldn't otherwise spend?
One great way to cut down your computer's power is to replace all of the big power-hungry graphics and processors with all these cheap and efficient ones like WalMart or whoever have been selling recently. Who volunteers to replace their nVidia 8800 with an on-board graphics card to save a hundred watts or so?
It's a good idea, but it's either expensive in gadgets or will often need to cripple what you have. (Yes I know there are more efficient graphics cards now, but the general trend is more power hungry)
Ditto for the Discworld Companions. Pratchett wasn't as actively involved in the creation of the maps (what with being an author rather than an artist) but he did still have his input on them, and I imagine it was the same with Stephen Briggs and his play adaptations as I think Pratchett is quite friendly with Briggs.
Interestingly, according to Stephen Briggs' site then he owns the rights to some of the plays, despite the fact that they're based on Pratchett's work. It'd be interesting to see how that relates to this case, as well as how all those well researched unauthorised Trek books relate.
Last time I checked the US Government seemed to think that everyone was bound by American laws, even if they're not US Nationals or not on US territory. Guess it's just Europe returning the favour;)
Either that what it really is is that Google trades in Europe (e.g. Google.co.uk, Google.de,...) and so has to follow European legislation there. Even if the purchase was made in the US under US legislation then it impacts all areas that Google trades in and hence the EU believe they have a right to investigate its implications and impact.
Following on along the Ghost in the Shell lines: if we do get self-aware tanks, then please don't make them as annoying as Tatchcomas! (sp?) Unless we use their grating voices to annoy the enemy to death...
Yes, there are ways of saving without the lossy compression (hence why I said "large" as an alternative to lossy compression) and other alternatives but that doesn't change the fact that there is no real reason for the scanning dialog to be modal.
Modal dialogs are there for when you don't want the user doing two things at once (e.g. "no you can't edit the image because I'm still in the middle of saving it"). If you're working on image A then why shouldn't you be allowed to have image B scanning in the background? A single thread is all it needs, and it might go slower than doing them in series but people won't want to wait. While some situations are more applicable than others then it is still a design/development choice that didn't necessarily need to have been made the way it did.
Only it is Photoshop, because that's the way he's doing it. The advantage of scanning directly into Photoshop is that it isn't saved to either an intermediary lossy or huge file and it is ready for you to work on in your interface once it has scanned. The majority of scanners I have used scan to JPEG to keep the colour at the slight loss of quality, which might not always be acceptable.
Photoshop's scanning seems to be modal for arbitrary reasons. Whether you want to scan to disk or scan and edit then with faster processors, more memory and dual core being common, why not take advantage and make things that don't have to be modal into non-modal operations? If your rig can't handle it then just don't do anything while the non-modal dialog completes and everyone is happy.
Firstly: "Pah" at the people who modded my joke comment as flamebait.
Secondly: I've done it before when I've walked across a side road, given it half a glance, got to the other side and realised I could probably have been paying more attention and was making up by listening for noise. If I can do it then why would children not listen out for cars as an extra cue?
Thirdly: The area you live in must have some really posh and expensive cars with super-quiet engines. Even at 30mph I can tell when a car is coming from a few hundred yards off and when I shouldn't even bother thinking about crossing the road because there is traffic, and it is mainly engine noise rather than road noise. Granted it is sometimes an older car, but I'd still expect an electric car to be a lot quieter than the majority of cars I see/hear.
While electric cars are great for environmental reasons, why has no-one taken up the cause against them to help protect the children? Think about it, one of the great things of electric cars is that they're effectively silent (usually). How can children cross the road safely, knowing there won't be a car hurtling around the corner, when they couldn't hear the car even if it was coming?
The only solution is to put speakers into the outside of cars that play the appropriate noise for a petrol engine. That way we get green cars _and_ safe roads where you can hear the traffic!
True, although with getting online then I worry about an in-game character being able to connect my computer to the Internet.
Can you imagine the police knocking on your door because a character in a game tried to hack the Pentagon or a bank from your machine while you were playing? Scary!
BioWare could become an incubator of innovative ideas and technologies that could eventually filter into EA's other properties
translates as:
All we can do is push out more expansions and content packs for The Sims, or publish yet another "[insert sport] [insert latest year]" game, or steal the SimCity franchise from Maxis after buying them out, so instead we're going to let BioWare do all that hard work and then publish it under the EA brand with a minor note for BioWare and act as if we've just done something new and cool ourselves
Your brother is a computer-generated character? Wow, I'd be interested to know how he gets online! I wonder how family meet-ups work - is it in Second Life or World of Warcrack?
I've occasionally used WhoIs to look up domains and IP blocks for spam and found very similar Ukrainian (or other) information in there that was useful to identify it as effectively the same person. Hiding information there would make things a bit more difficult to track. I guess in that situation, though, they'd be a commercial entity using their domain for commercial purposes and so couldn't opt out. Well, they could lie and opt out, but a decent registrar should be able to kill the opt out when they are informed that the use isn't personal.
Having accountability of commercial domains is a potential advantage, though.
Ditto for UK domains. As long as you're a non-commercial individual then you don't even need to cough up for the privacy fee that they charge for.coms.
I've never seen the point of my (personal) details being on a WhoIs record. If it was a corporate held domain and there was some validation that the details were correct then it might be useful, but for any Tom, Dick or Harry buying their own domain then it seems like a major security risk (ignoring the more low-level privacy invasion of posting it on the Net).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know. I think that might be a bit too soon to convince the RIAA people (or our UK/EU counterparts) to remove DRM.
Head first turkey? That has some rather worrying implications of the situations you could get yourself into!
stuff that matters...if you have problems trying to cook a good turkey and you're willing to accept the "how to cook" as news.
As an AC mentioned in reply to my original post, and as I replied to the other similar response, maybe phpBB isn't the best example, it was just the easiest that I came up with.
A better example for AGPL is a real web service. If someone AGPLs a service to do some complex maths and you then improve on it and use it as a web service in one of your applications then it is only fair that you redistribute the changes since you're effectively using it as a modified (GPLed) library but without having to redistribute your changes because you're technically not redistributing it.
In that situation it's a bit like the limitation of not being allowed to use non-GPLed libraries with a GPL app (where you could slowly siphon code into a non-GPLed library) - you're taking advantage of a possible loop hole in the license, so GPL patches it by saying no non-GPL libraries and AGPL patches it by saying no using AGPL web services without redistributing modifications.
But it does. It has the effect that the project could be improved in some way but hasn't been, despite the fact that those changes are being used in a public (i.e. website powering) location.
Hence why I said "when you distribute the app".
Quite obviously not, but at the end of the day then I think forum software might not be the best example. A proper web service is similar, but rather than just producing HTML output for an end user then it becomes an integral part of an application that you distribute.
In that case it is like modifying and using an LGPLed library but not releasing the source - you're using (L/A)GPL 'libraries' with modifications and so should be redistributing them.
Again, I'm not saying it is perfect for all web-based software, but there are situations where it can have its uses (as with any license).
Is it just me or does the "brighter" part imply that we might be getting those awful "shine like its made of glass, covered in gloss varnish and polished to a micron-perfect smooth surface" effects all over the interface?
On the plus side at least some of the improvements (like resuming saves and better performance) might be worth it. Hopefully any uglyness can be styled away again. Native forms sounds like an improvement as well.
But there's always the possibility that someone will have a targeted ad that I might actually want to click on, at which point why should they get penalised when their other adverts aren't annoying and intrusive?
As for webmasters hosting their own, that should be a consideration they make when they host it themselves. I know that if I ever ran adverts on my websites (all six of them, all currently without ads) then it'd be something I considered was the number of times it would get downloaded without making me profit.
If (and it's a big 'if') phpBB were to use the AGPL then yes, those bullet points are pretty much what I'm saying. The theming might be different, though, since the theme isn't normally (AFAIK) licensed under the GPL. What I'm talking about is that this kind of license would ensure that all modifications should* be released in the mod area of the script's website.
As for open sourcing mods, I've already released several for Invisionboard v1 when I was in my teens, a couple for phpBB, I've helped fix bugs in phpBB mods, and I'm working on my own project at the moment that will be released as LGPL (because I want people to be able to reuse the backend library if they want). I may use open source, but I also like to try to contribute back where I can.
As I said at the end of my previous post, there would be some degree of putting people off if you required them to release their modifications, but at the same time it does ensure that no-one makes great speed improvements and keeps them to themselves. The same argument could be made for GPLing an application - any changes you make have to be distributed when you distribute the app, which might put a lot of people off using and modifying your app. People still seem happy to use GPL, though.
I'm not entirely sure where I wasn't being clear and where I mentioned the PHP language.
.
* 'should' rather than 'must' because if they make a sufficiently small change then it may not be obvious and people may hide it and pretend they never did it.
I can see where this would be useful.
Say you've got forum software, like phpBB. Lots of people put modifications into it and lots of people release modifications. There are also lots of people who hack in large custom mods and gain from the phpBB base while not releasing anything because it is GPL. If phpBB was AGPLed then major changes like that would have to be released and so anyone modifying, for example, a forum script to turn it into a CMS would have to release their modification. That would then stop people having to re-implement the same CMS functionality just because no-one wanted to release it.
Okay, so it's not necessarily going to be a winner in all cases, and it may dissuade some people from using a script, but I can see where it might be useful.
Not quite passive if they're using Flash, though. I'm selective with my AdBlocking because I know some webmasters rely on the revenue. Anything that's overly flashy (be it flash or animated GIF) or anything too large/overlapping/intrusive gets the page or folder containing the add blocked. If it happens too many times then the entire domain goes.
As for the drive-by infection, hasn't that been going on for a while? I guess it is new (and slightly ironic in a "malware" kind of way) to put AV spam and redirects up instead, though.
Never mind the fact that people don't trust ICANN to be in charge of things* then that implies they want it to be moved to some other central location.
If we put it under NATO or UN control or something then where do the main authoritative servers get put? The UN doesn't own any territory, which means it would have to put it in the territory or a member state. Either that or they put it somewhere completely neutral (middle of the sea?) at which point the connection is terrible.
So, while it might be good to have it under less potentially influenced control, where would it all physically go?
* which, TBH, if the US Government have a veto on them then I don't really, but that's not important
Even worse is that those automated pre-recorded ones don't give up either. You normally have to pick up and put down the phone multiple times before it finally disconnects!
Luckily, in the UK we have a "don't call" list and it works fine for me - no ghost calls and not even any marketing calls. I've just got to get re-listed now that I've moved house...
Okay, so it saved him $90 when he replaced some items, but how much extra would you spend on the new items that you wouldn't otherwise spend?
One great way to cut down your computer's power is to replace all of the big power-hungry graphics and processors with all these cheap and efficient ones like WalMart or whoever have been selling recently. Who volunteers to replace their nVidia 8800 with an on-board graphics card to save a hundred watts or so?
It's a good idea, but it's either expensive in gadgets or will often need to cripple what you have. (Yes I know there are more efficient graphics cards now, but the general trend is more power hungry)
Ditto for the Discworld Companions. Pratchett wasn't as actively involved in the creation of the maps (what with being an author rather than an artist) but he did still have his input on them, and I imagine it was the same with Stephen Briggs and his play adaptations as I think Pratchett is quite friendly with Briggs.
Interestingly, according to Stephen Briggs' site then he owns the rights to some of the plays, despite the fact that they're based on Pratchett's work. It'd be interesting to see how that relates to this case, as well as how all those well researched unauthorised Trek books relate.
Last time I checked the US Government seemed to think that everyone was bound by American laws, even if they're not US Nationals or not on US territory. Guess it's just Europe returning the favour ;)
Either that what it really is is that Google trades in Europe (e.g. Google.co.uk, Google.de,...) and so has to follow European legislation there. Even if the purchase was made in the US under US legislation then it impacts all areas that Google trades in and hence the EU believe they have a right to investigate its implications and impact.
Following on along the Ghost in the Shell lines: if we do get self-aware tanks, then please don't make them as annoying as Tatchcomas! (sp?) Unless we use their grating voices to annoy the enemy to death...
Yes, there are ways of saving without the lossy compression (hence why I said "large" as an alternative to lossy compression) and other alternatives but that doesn't change the fact that there is no real reason for the scanning dialog to be modal.
Modal dialogs are there for when you don't want the user doing two things at once (e.g. "no you can't edit the image because I'm still in the middle of saving it"). If you're working on image A then why shouldn't you be allowed to have image B scanning in the background? A single thread is all it needs, and it might go slower than doing them in series but people won't want to wait. While some situations are more applicable than others then it is still a design/development choice that didn't necessarily need to have been made the way it did.
Only it is Photoshop, because that's the way he's doing it. The advantage of scanning directly into Photoshop is that it isn't saved to either an intermediary lossy or huge file and it is ready for you to work on in your interface once it has scanned. The majority of scanners I have used scan to JPEG to keep the colour at the slight loss of quality, which might not always be acceptable.
Photoshop's scanning seems to be modal for arbitrary reasons. Whether you want to scan to disk or scan and edit then with faster processors, more memory and dual core being common, why not take advantage and make things that don't have to be modal into non-modal operations? If your rig can't handle it then just don't do anything while the non-modal dialog completes and everyone is happy.
Firstly: "Pah" at the people who modded my joke comment as flamebait.
Secondly: I've done it before when I've walked across a side road, given it half a glance, got to the other side and realised I could probably have been paying more attention and was making up by listening for noise. If I can do it then why would children not listen out for cars as an extra cue?
Thirdly: The area you live in must have some really posh and expensive cars with super-quiet engines. Even at 30mph I can tell when a car is coming from a few hundred yards off and when I shouldn't even bother thinking about crossing the road because there is traffic, and it is mainly engine noise rather than road noise. Granted it is sometimes an older car, but I'd still expect an electric car to be a lot quieter than the majority of cars I see/hear.
While electric cars are great for environmental reasons, why has no-one taken up the cause against them to help protect the children? Think about it, one of the great things of electric cars is that they're effectively silent (usually). How can children cross the road safely, knowing there won't be a car hurtling around the corner, when they couldn't hear the car even if it was coming?
The only solution is to put speakers into the outside of cars that play the appropriate noise for a petrol engine. That way we get green cars _and_ safe roads where you can hear the traffic!
True, although with getting online then I worry about an in-game character being able to connect my computer to the Internet.
Can you imagine the police knocking on your door because a character in a game tried to hack the Pentagon or a bank from your machine while you were playing? Scary!
translates as:
Your brother is a computer-generated character? Wow, I'd be interested to know how he gets online! I wonder how family meet-ups work - is it in Second Life or World of Warcrack?
I've occasionally used WhoIs to look up domains and IP blocks for spam and found very similar Ukrainian (or other) information in there that was useful to identify it as effectively the same person. Hiding information there would make things a bit more difficult to track. I guess in that situation, though, they'd be a commercial entity using their domain for commercial purposes and so couldn't opt out. Well, they could lie and opt out, but a decent registrar should be able to kill the opt out when they are informed that the use isn't personal.
Having accountability of commercial domains is a potential advantage, though.
Ditto for UK domains. As long as you're a non-commercial individual then you don't even need to cough up for the privacy fee that they charge for .coms.
I've never seen the point of my (personal) details being on a WhoIs record. If it was a corporate held domain and there was some validation that the details were correct then it might be useful, but for any Tom, Dick or Harry buying their own domain then it seems like a major security risk (ignoring the more low-level privacy invasion of posting it on the Net).