"The case cited only has to do with photos of public domain images."
What year were those drawings, um, drawn in? Yes, no matter where in the world you are, those drawings are public domain. And if you were in America then any photo/scan of those images would also be public domain.
We don't copyright ALL photos. Only those which have some "original" creativity to them (the quote around original because that is what the law says).
"if you took your own photo of them, you would have the copyright to it"
Wrong (In the US).
In the US we don't give copyright for simply making a faithful reproduction of anything. You didn't add any new creative element by taking a photograph of a piece of paper. This is why Google does not hold a copyright on the scans of public domain works. (but they do limit their use based on Contracts/TOS, which is fine, you can sign away your rights in a contract)
Now, in the UK, what you said is probably correct. They are, in my opinion, wrongly assigning copyright to people based on "sweat of the brow" work, not creativity.
They are "encouraging the use of other clients" by not providing an option for Linux. I think you should have said they are "requiring the use of other clients if you want an Open Source solution."
So, they are better because they're offering is closed source and thus encouraging people to use another client?
A) writing documentation will not fix the UI problem. And yes, UI problems should be seen as bugs not just suggestions. What should they do then to help?
B) conflating a zero marginal cost item with a non-zero marginal cost item is just not a valid argument.
You are expecting people to use your software for free no matter what. Even if they call you a . No where in most OSS licenses does it say your users have to be nice to use your software. But, being a jerk will probably not make your bug report looked at and fixed quicker (which is probably close to what you were saying).
The two sides I see here are not Specification A and Specification B but not producing an open standard and producing an open standard.
"there is a lot to be said for open standards"... Yes, Something indeed. Who lead the CD revolution? Sony. Who developed the standard? Sony (and Phillips). They released the standard after they had working products to sell. The "standard" still then cost a lot of money to even look at. (See the wikipedia article on the Red Book standard).
My Point (finally?): Giving the excuse of "we don't want to release it early because then there will be incompatibility issues" (paraphrase) is complete bunk. No company in their right mind would implement a pre-standardized hardware specification (and sink mucho dinero into the manufacturing costs of just the parts to make the parts). And if they do, they aren't AMD/nVidia or Intel. [1]
It would only help in that the other parties would be able to help improve the standard before it is released. Oh, and have equal footing with Intel too, since they would be sharing equal responsibility to creating it.
[1] Counter argument: HD-DVD and BluRay. Nope, that case is an argument FOR what I am saying, not against. If they both would have worked together to produce an open standard, instead of trying to beat each other completely, they both would have had the right product and we, the consumers, would be able to have real competition in the hardware sector.
Please delete your user data (No contact info means that they can't be forced to give something which isn't there. Drawback: forget your password, you're screwed) We keep minimal logs We do not share data with anyone We will defend your data We will not monitor your communications Your data is encrypted
(No, I am not affiliated with them, just found out about them this week myself)
We're going off-topic and meta, but I will respond: True, slashvertisment usually meant when Slashdot was (thought to be) making money, but I am here using the term as when someone not only submits a story about themselves, but includes an Ad for the product they sell in the video they link to. That is it.
I guess I should have said "clever marketing submission"
Just think about "ziping" a text file. It is smaller than the original file ("compressed") yet when you "unzip" it ALL of the information is still there ("lossless").
FLAC and SHN (shorten) are basically fancy ways of "ziping" a file of audio. So, they are effectively the same thing as the original WAV (what is on the CD).
This of course leaves out any discussion on digital v. analog audio quality, but that is beside the point.
Yes, I over-over-simplified. But it gets the point across.
if magically the US woke up tomorrow with Canada-style health care, overall costs would go down. No extra money from the war budget or anywhere else would be needed.
Wait, so you're saying that if we did the "right thing" and had a Universal/National/Patriotic Health Plan we would spend MORE money on the war??
I say that in jest, but, as we see the Military-Congressional-Industrial Complex will always get more money. No matter what we do, they will get more money. Lets go with the Universal/National/Patriotic Health Plan and save money nationally. Sure, some of that money once spent on health will now be spent on death, but the consciousness shift can't hurt the discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess we don't :) I misread your statement, then.
And you are arguing that that having a new copyright on those photographs of a public domain image is a Good Thing?
I wasn't arguing either way, actually. Just stating that in the US those photos would not be copyrighted.
"The case cited only has to do with photos of public domain images."
What year were those drawings, um, drawn in? Yes, no matter where in the world you are, those drawings are public domain. And if you were in America then any photo/scan of those images would also be public domain.
We don't copyright ALL photos. Only those which have some "original" creativity to them (the quote around original because that is what the law says).
"if you took your own photo of them, you would have the copyright to it"
Wrong (In the US).
In the US we don't give copyright for simply making a faithful reproduction of anything. You didn't add any new creative element by taking a photograph of a piece of paper. This is why Google does not hold a copyright on the scans of public domain works. (but they do limit their use based on Contracts/TOS, which is fine, you can sign away your rights in a contract)
For the court case which spells this out see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
Now, in the UK, what you said is probably correct. They are, in my opinion, wrongly assigning copyright to people based on "sweat of the brow" work, not creativity.
They are "encouraging the use of other clients" by not providing an option for Linux. I think you should have said they are "requiring the use of other clients if you want an Open Source solution."
So, they are better because they're offering is closed source and thus encouraging people to use another client?
That is of course true, but that doesn't mean that Google's implementation is anywhere near as open as Yandex.
Google: Open Protocol, Closed Client
Yandex: Open Protocol, Open Client
Looks like Yandex wins.
Right, but GoogleTalk is not Open Source, see: http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en
And GoogleTalk isn't available for GNU/Linux.
And Google doesn't host a mirror of OSS projects (except GoogleCode, which is different).
Anything else?
I agree with you until your last 2 sentences.
A) writing documentation will not fix the UI problem. And yes, UI problems should be seen as bugs not just suggestions. What should they do then to help?
B) conflating a zero marginal cost item with a non-zero marginal cost item is just not a valid argument.
You are expecting people to use your software for free no matter what. Even if they call you a . No where in most OSS licenses does it say your users have to be nice to use your software. But, being a jerk will probably not make your bug report looked at and fixed quicker (which is probably close to what you were saying).
The two sides I see here are not Specification A and Specification B but not producing an open standard and producing an open standard.
"there is a lot to be said for open standards"... Yes, Something indeed. Who lead the CD revolution? Sony. Who developed the standard? Sony (and Phillips). They released the standard after they had working products to sell. The "standard" still then cost a lot of money to even look at. (See the wikipedia article on the Red Book standard).
My Point (finally?): Giving the excuse of "we don't want to release it early because then there will be incompatibility issues" (paraphrase) is complete bunk. No company in their right mind would implement a pre-standardized hardware specification (and sink mucho dinero into the manufacturing costs of just the parts to make the parts). And if they do, they aren't AMD/nVidia or Intel. [1]
It would only help in that the other parties would be able to help improve the standard before it is released. Oh, and have equal footing with Intel too, since they would be sharing equal responsibility to creating it.
[1] Counter argument: HD-DVD and BluRay. Nope, that case is an argument FOR what I am saying, not against. If they both would have worked together to produce an open standard, instead of trying to beat each other completely, they both would have had the right product and we, the consumers, would be able to have real competition in the hardware sector.
That is all.
How is this article, published online by an employee of a company supported by Intel, not biased in its analysis of the situation?
riseup.net
From their Privacy Policy:
Please delete your user data (No contact info means that they can't be forced to give something which isn't there. Drawback: forget your password, you're screwed)
We keep minimal logs
We do not share data with anyone
We will defend your data
We will not monitor your communications
Your data is encrypted
(No, I am not affiliated with them, just found out about them this week myself)
We're going off-topic and meta, but I will respond: True, slashvertisment usually meant when Slashdot was (thought to be) making money, but I am here using the term as when someone not only submits a story about themselves, but includes an Ad for the product they sell in the video they link to. That is it.
I guess I should have said "clever marketing submission"
Yep, the submitter's email is from the company that stands to gain from more hits to this video (the ad at the end of the video).
Because it isn't just their privacy policy. It is the page where you set your privacy options. Thats why.
Or his comment where he said he was a Microsoft Developer, either/or.
He works for them, check his webpage.
Just think about "ziping" a text file. It is smaller than the original file ("compressed") yet when you "unzip" it ALL of the information is still there ("lossless").
FLAC and SHN (shorten) are basically fancy ways of "ziping" a file of audio. So, they are effectively the same thing as the original WAV (what is on the CD).
This of course leaves out any discussion on digital v. analog audio quality, but that is beside the point.
Yes, I over-over-simplified. But it gets the point across.
if magically the US woke up tomorrow with Canada-style health care, overall costs would go down. No extra money from the war budget or anywhere else would be needed.
Wait, so you're saying that if we did the "right thing" and had a Universal/National/Patriotic Health Plan we would spend MORE money on the war??
I say that in jest, but, as we see the Military-Congressional-Industrial Complex will always get more money. No matter what we do, they will get more money. Lets go with the Universal/National/Patriotic Health Plan and save money nationally. Sure, some of that money once spent on health will now be spent on death, but the consciousness shift can't hurt the discussion.