"It was 1998, and KDE had just come out, " Lemarois recalls. "He wanted to take Red Hat [the Linux distribution], remove the crappy interface, install KDE in its place and make the user links a bit easier."
Are the big guns watching? What a great example of the positive influence of Open source ideals in the business community. Instead of being viewed as a bad guy for porting Red Hat and calling it his own, Duval is viewed as a partner and as a player in promoting Open Source. What a stretch for big companies like M$, Sun etc for them to actually understand, much less support this methodology. I know they're analyzing the model and are trying to leverage it where they can, but I don't feel it is in the same way that Duval or Lemarois would. The big guns are trying more to exploit the weaknesses of Open Source and GNU rather than participating as a partner. The ones who adopt and support this alternative business model either in part or in full will be the big winners. The sooner they get on board, the better their long term standing will be. Look at IBM and the story that ran yesterday, Open Source, It's not just for geeks anymore.
our going to have to take risks when going to new levels. NASA and members of its staff, made decisions, based on all the information they had at the time. They took an educated risk, that's all. We take educated risks every day, at work, at home in our personal lives. How many folks can honestly say that EVERY time they have ever pulled their car into a busy highway they made the right choice to go at that perticular moment. I think it's safe to say most of us have made a few poor choices. Hell it's NASA, these guys are in the risk business, every mission they run has an element of risk, they make decisions with elements of risk, some risk very high, on every manned or unmanned mission they do. Give 'em a break. I'm not happy to have our tax dollars burned up either but I'd rather have that than not to have tried at all.
Well to really drive this redundant topic into the gound. How about, maybe the moderator thought the beowulf cluster of beowulf clusters was kind of reapetedly redundant and then the repeated repeating of repeating the original repeating of the beowulf of beowulfs was being repeated and this was eyed, seen and viewed as redundant, then the moderating moderator moderated the repeated post outlining and stating in the verbage of the written post that in his/her point of view and from his/her mindset he/she thought that the repeated repeating of repeating the original repeating of the beowulf of beowulfs was being repeated and this was eyed, seen and viewed as redundant. So the moderating moderator moderated the repeated post outlining and stating in the verbage of the written post that in his/her point of view and from his/her mindset he/she thought that the repeated repeating of repeating the original repeating of the beowulf of beowulfs was being repeated and this was eyed, seen and viewed as redundant. This being said, the moderator more than likely tagged the repeatedly repeating repeat posts stating the redundancy of the redundancy was redundant.
I dunno. That's pretty harsh. Most of the MWave group didn't document anything is a correct statement to a degree. Contractually Roland was supposed to, they partnered in the effort of MWave. Roland icidentally is where the core of the MWave team ended up at.
They get it. Nice to see. As big blue ports to Linux, they will get a strong foothold in the markets they used to dominate in the 70's. A little forethought and a pirate flag mentality have begun to change the company. It's good to see that they view M$ and Sun as the targets to take marketshare away from and not, as in the old days a strategic partner in which they could join forces and split the difference. This new competition will be good for the consumer in the long run, more compatible systems, more choice and lower costs. I do hope they give the effort the right long term focus and do a better job overall than they did with WARP. This was left to a lesser team of engineers and poor PM that eventually killed it's mainstream appeal.
IBM's betting the farm on the future of Linux and Open Source ideals taking off. Big Risk. Linux as fully mainstream does have a long way to go, but with big guns like IBM making so much noise, it allows Linux and similar efforts to ride on the PR coattails. They're even porting things in house and ditching AIX, It's good to see real commitment and not just a fly by token "Yeah we support Linux also". I beleive they really get it and see the industial strength value.
If it doesn't it should. Our firewall products filter on matched. Such as Child and touch, or Child and Pron, etc. An engine looks at the text of a page, grinds key words against a set list. If two match up, not page is passed inside. Not really censorship IMO, this is just a corporate firewall restriction to protect the company from the surfing of it's employees.
Linux advocates, such as evangelist Chris Dibona at VA Linux,
Slightly off topic but I found it funny that they refered to Chris Dibona as an evangelist. From Dictionary.com:
evangelist \E*van"gel*ist\, n. [F. ['e]vang['e]liste, L. evangelista, fr. Gr. ?.] A bringer of the glad tidings of Church and his doctrines. Specially: (a) A missionary preacher sent forth to prepare the way for a resident pastor; an itinerant missionary preacher. (b) A writer of one of the four Gospels (With the definite article); as, the four evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. (c) A traveling preacher whose efforts are chiefly directed to arouse to immediate repentance. The Apostles, so far as they evangelized, might claim the tittle though there were many evangelists who were not Apistles. --Plumptre.
I can see Chris now, all gussied up in his ceremonial Tux outfit, watching over his Linux flock, lined up in the pews of the Church of Linux and Open Source Advocates.
I know the article is written with a very pro AMD point of view. But in the second paragraph of the details section, it speaks to the paraphrased statement from Intel that they don't expect this technology to become standard until at least 2005. I would take this as Intel is not working on marketing a chip of this flavor for now, but is looking at it by 2005. I didn't get the impression that Intel has abandoned or is about to abandon the architecture if they feel it will be standard in 2005.
This is just part of the never ending soap opra FUD. Last time we visited the "security experts" they were telling the word that Open Source operating systems and applications were more suseptable to virus attacks. This time it's security. Get you boots on folks, it's startin' to get deep.
From a PHB's point of view, plain and simple, Security on any system is more in the hands of the Sys admins and proper implementation and administration of the products that just the base architecture of the product. This said, with the caliber of admins on the street, basically between the MCSE variety and a solid Linux or Open OS admin, I would choose the Open OS admin every time.
At least with this product they are not strictly following intels direction. But I don't think they're heading toward RISC specifically. The "Details" section on the site has a blurb aboput Sledgehammer bridging between 32 and 64, but not with the standard RISCesque architecture. Seems like more of an x86 on steroids.
Intel has said that it does not think 64-bit will become a standard until at least 2005; this is a 4-year window for AMD to move to the forefront of consumer computing.
AMD has finally decided not to be the bridesmaid. This is the first real offering that doesn't mimick the direction set by Intel. With Sledgehammer being the only targeted 64-bit architecture from the big three that doesn't move to RISC. Speeds at close to 2Ghz and not using RISC architecture will open up a part of the market and allow AMD to bet the leader for once. Opening up the portability between 32-bit and 64-bit computing is goint to give AMD a huge advantage at least for the short term. Now let's see how they deliver, hopefully they learned from the Coppermine like failures with logistics and get the product to the shelves when they say they will.
With technology there has been a fundamental shift in business model. "Property" used to mean physical stuff you could touch, package and ship. Now it's not like that anymore. When you borrow a bit, there's allways a bit left. Data should not be viewed as physical. The direction and mantra of copyleft and similar activities are that data is not a physical medium, that is that it is relatively abundant. Source code, music, etc is data, and without disadvantage you can make unlimited copies. Simply put, when you make a copy, the original entity is neither damaged or destroyed. With today's leaps in technology the folks behind copyleft believe that "that human expression and communication across digital computing networks is actioned through referencing, copying and sampling this weightless, non-physical data". We should be allowed open access to the unrestricted copying and redistribution as long as the originals are unchanged, undamaged whatever and that all subsequent copies keep their integrity. Published or in the wild data should be immanently shareable, breaking the old and outdated principals behind intellectual property which had it's time relating to physical mediums but the architecture of the policies just don't port well to data.
The companies who can understand this shift have a significant advantage on how we are going to be doing business tomorrow. The same goes for DMCA if they apply the same "Old School" model to today./tomorrows technical environment problems, the problems will not get addressed, they will increase ten fold. I don't thing the folks behind DMCA are nessasarily evil, they just simply are using the wrong tools, the wrong model and for some reason forcing a round peg in a square hole.
Yes, it actually does. The copyright office is generally and IMO sincerely interested in fixing this. The DMCA and all it encompasses was a bad move pushed though congress much like pork on any other bill. I doubt that anyone in the political (read nontechnical) areana really knew of it's implications. Now that were stuck with it, and it has received so much flame, they have to look at it, because the political community is beginning to learn just how far reaching this is. Your posted comments, letters and communications with the copyright office, elected representetives and lobbies like EFF do have an impact. Write that letter.
If you enjoy playing DVDs on your Open Source system, and if your future is in how open source continues to evolve, Get those comments in. Whining on this site helps with some dialog and focus on issues, but physically does nothing. Getting your comments to the Copyright office will have an impact. Please don't make them flaming in nature, be professional and polite, any "DMCA sux" comments will go right to the bottom and your voice won't be heard.
The MPAA has exploited the DMCA to architect CSS licensing in a way that completely manipulated and controlls the publishers and DVD player manufacturers. If the MPAA wins out over DeCSS, a precident will be set that will set back the MPAA a long way.
Also don't just submit one comment. They are public and you can respond to other comments already received and posted. (See the last/. story on this). Lastly don't stop at just the copyright office. Support EFF,and also write you elected represetatives and let them know how you feel, Make sure that in all your verbal or written communication to either an elected official, industry lobby or industry exec that you be nice. Elected officials really don't respond well to flames, spam, mail floods or harsh language. You will come off as a script kiddie and be completely ignored. For a loose reference, re-read the Linux Advocacy Guide, it will give you the right sort of flavor for your communications.
# load required modules use strict; use POSIX qw(setsid); use LWP::Simple; # set costants my $URL = 'http://www.slashdot.org/'; my $FILE = '/tmp/firstpostbaby.html'; # flush the buffer $| = 1; # daemonize the program &daemonize; # first post infinite loop while(1) { # mirror the file mirror($URL,$FILE); # wait for 20 seconds sleep(20); } sub daemonize { chdir '/' or die "Can't chdir to/: $!"; open STDIN, '/dev/null' or die "Can't read/dev/null: $!FIRST POST;; open STDOUT, '>>/dev/null' or die "Can't write to/dev/null: $!FISRT POST;; open STDERR, '>>/dev/null' or die "Can't write to/dev/null: $!NOFIRSTPOST;; defined(my $pid = fork) or die "Can't fork: $!"; exit if $pid; setsid or die "Can't get a first post, start a new session: $!"; umask 0; }
I disagree. What Randall did was as qrong as you can get. As for the reference to 1/2 the open source liminaries, I also disagree. Randall did a lot more than most, frankly I feel he got off ver easy. Theft is theft, plain and simple, in my view I place in the same punk kid catagory as Mitnick. I think the guys is a disgrace and the assumption that "Everyone does it, he just got caught" is incorrect, everyone does not hijack passwords, break into corporate systems or steal.
Check out sid=index (sorry to lazy to link) and click throught to the troll forums expecially the 15639inchfan or something like that. Trolling when done properly is sort of an art. But here all we have is spam.
The basic types of trolls found here are:
1) original trolls, (dmg, md80 etc.) they are fishing for comments, generally flamish in nature, but very well crafted. Many times they take on a life of their own and take over an entire thread. 2) Funny regulars, these are natalie portman references, hot grits guy, Trollmaster song parodies. Generally on topic, just done as fun andd part of the/. culture. 3) Unwashed elves, these are the First Post Dude and generally stupid attempts at humor. 4) Spammers and Flooders, crude, off-topic and repeated garbage that seems to have no meaning at all. Much like the moron who posted the top of this thread.
The dmg,md80 and rfw trolls can be quite funny, a lot of effort goes into these and many are well coordinated with each other. Not really a rotation, but the styles are pretty disctict and they know each other and work together when in the same thread. Pretty funny stuff, md80 and dmg have been around forever.
Thanks, I agree that half is an exaggeration, And you hit what I thought was the underlying gotcha. If even x number of M$ employees bound by their non-compete or intellectual property clauses have contributed in ways that begome widely used, which I'm sure is happening, It puts M$ as many other companies who are propriatary and closed in approach in a very odd position, supporting that which they are philisophically opposed to. Interesting business problem, no easy way out.
Another big step for apple in the right direction. I like the fact that the author who appears to be in charge of the mechanics of getting the work done, has asked what would people like to see as far as how the various versions are put together. One thing that puzzled me though was the second half of this.
The first step is to assign copyright to the FSF; this is a long- standing FSF policy that people often find annoying, but it has the advantage that the FSF has clear title to all code in GNU. (Unlike, say, Linux, which is probably half-owned by Microsoft by now, only Microsoft doesn't know it yet...:-)
I understand why FSF wants/needs the copyright assigned to the FSF so that the efforts remains fairly unbastardized, but what did he mean by the M$ comment?
Than having rays shot at your face for 12-18 hours a day. With all the leaps in technology over the last 20 years it's about time that we get past CRT's and the basic architecture we use as a standard today. As soon as the costs come down a +20" LCD display is tops on my list, for me and for my kids. I fear that is another 20 or 30 years, the medical community will come back and say that all the exposure to monitors causes cancer or something like that.
The direction and mantra of copyleft and similar activities are that data is not a physical medium, that is that it is relatively abundant. Like Negraponties(sp?) analogy, when you borrow a bit, there is always a bit leftover. This said, source code, music, etc is data, and without disadvantage you can make unlimited copies. Simply put, when you make a copy, the original entity is neither damaged or destroyed. With today's leaps in technology the folks behind copyleft believe that "that human expression and communication across digital computing networks is actioned through referencing, copying and sampling this weightless, non-physical data". We should be allowed open access to the unrestricted copying and redistribution as long as the originals are unchanged, undamaged whatever and that all subsequent copies keep their integrity. Published or in the wild data should be immanently shareable, breaking the old and outdated principals behind intellectual property which had it's time relating to physical mediums but the architecture of the policies just don't port well to data. Music makes the copyright policies even muddier, who owns words? who owns notes?
Your post was not read as a flame. The reason they were tagged as a monopoly was for their business practices. The main one being that M$ just doesn't play nice in the sandbox with competition. What better way to show good sportsmanship that to publicly release the source. (Although we know it's not truly open). For PR, this is great M$ says, look we're cooperating, in fact we're giving our hard work away for free.
Slashdot Mirror
"It was 1998, and KDE had just come out, " Lemarois recalls. "He wanted to take Red Hat [the Linux distribution], remove the crappy interface, install KDE in its place and make the user links a bit easier."
Talk about a short and simple objective.
Are the big guns watching? What a great example of the positive influence of Open source ideals in the business community. Instead of being viewed as a bad guy for porting Red Hat and calling it his own, Duval is viewed as a partner and as a player in promoting Open Source. What a stretch for big companies like M$, Sun etc for them to actually understand, much less support this methodology. I know they're analyzing the model and are trying to leverage it where they can, but I don't feel it is in the same way that Duval or Lemarois would. The big guns are trying more to exploit the weaknesses of Open Source and GNU rather than participating as a partner. The ones who adopt and support this alternative business model either in part or in full will be the big winners. The sooner they get on board, the better their long term standing will be. Look at IBM and the story that ran yesterday, Open Source, It's not just for geeks anymore.
our going to have to take risks when going to new levels. NASA and members of its staff, made decisions, based on all the information they had at the time. They took an educated risk, that's all. We take educated risks every day, at work, at home in our personal lives. How many folks can honestly say that EVERY time they have ever pulled their car into a busy highway they made the right choice to go at that perticular moment. I think it's safe to say most of us have made a few poor choices. Hell it's NASA, these guys are in the risk business, every mission they run has an element of risk, they make decisions with elements of risk, some risk very high, on every manned or unmanned mission they do. Give 'em a break. I'm not happy to have our tax dollars burned up either but I'd rather have that than not to have tried at all.
Well to really drive this redundant topic into the gound. How about, maybe the moderator thought the beowulf cluster of beowulf clusters was kind of reapetedly redundant and then the repeated repeating of repeating the original repeating of the beowulf of beowulfs was being repeated and this was eyed, seen and viewed as redundant, then the moderating moderator moderated the repeated post outlining and stating in the verbage of the written post that in his/her point of view and from his/her mindset he/she thought that the repeated repeating of repeating the original repeating of the beowulf of beowulfs was being repeated and this was eyed, seen and viewed as redundant. So the moderating moderator moderated the repeated post outlining and stating in the verbage of the written post that in his/her point of view and from his/her mindset he/she thought that the repeated repeating of repeating the original repeating of the beowulf of beowulfs was being repeated and this was eyed, seen and viewed as redundant. This being said, the moderator more than likely tagged the repeatedly repeating repeat posts stating the redundancy of the redundancy was redundant.
Sorry couldn't resist.
I dunno. That's pretty harsh. Most of the MWave group didn't document anything is a correct statement to a degree. Contractually Roland was supposed to, they partnered in the effort of MWave. Roland icidentally is where the core of the MWave team ended up at.
IBM's betting the farm on the future of Linux and Open Source ideals taking off. Big Risk. Linux as fully mainstream does have a long way to go, but with big guns like IBM making so much noise, it allows Linux and similar efforts to ride on the PR coattails. They're even porting things in house and ditching AIX, It's good to see real commitment and not just a fly by token "Yeah we support Linux also". I beleive they really get it and see the industial strength value.
If it doesn't it should. Our firewall products filter on matched. Such as Child and touch, or Child and Pron, etc. An engine looks at the text of a page, grinds key words against a set list. If two match up, not page is passed inside. Not really censorship IMO, this is just a corporate firewall restriction to protect the company from the surfing of it's employees.
Slightly off topic but I found it funny that they refered to Chris Dibona as an evangelist.
From Dictionary.com:
evangelist \E*van"gel*ist\, n. [F. ['e]vang['e]liste, L. evangelista, fr. Gr. ?.]
A bringer of the glad tidings of Church and his doctrines. Specially:
(a) A missionary preacher sent forth to prepare the way for a resident pastor; an itinerant missionary preacher.
(b) A writer of one of the four Gospels (With the definite article); as, the four evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
(c) A traveling preacher whose efforts are chiefly directed to arouse to immediate repentance. The Apostles, so far as they evangelized, might claim the tittle though there were many evangelists who were not Apistles. --Plumptre.
I can see Chris now, all gussied up in his ceremonial Tux outfit, watching over his Linux flock, lined up in the pews of the Church of Linux and Open Source Advocates.
I know the article is written with a very pro AMD point of view. But in the second paragraph of the details section, it speaks to the paraphrased statement from Intel that they don't expect this technology to become standard until at least 2005. I would take this as Intel is not working on marketing a chip of this flavor for now, but is looking at it by 2005. I didn't get the impression that Intel has abandoned or is about to abandon the architecture if they feel it will be standard in 2005.
From a PHB's point of view, plain and simple, Security on any system is more in the hands of the Sys admins and proper implementation and administration of the products that just the base architecture of the product. This said, with the caliber of admins on the street, basically between the MCSE variety and a solid Linux or Open OS admin, I would choose the Open OS admin every time.
Good point, maybe I should have said an x86 on Viagra. 8)
At least with this product they are not strictly following intels direction. But I don't think they're heading toward RISC specifically. The "Details" section on the site has a blurb aboput Sledgehammer bridging between 32 and 64, but not with the standard RISCesque architecture. Seems like more of an x86 on steroids.
AMD has finally decided not to be the bridesmaid. This is the first real offering that doesn't mimick the direction set by Intel. With Sledgehammer being the only targeted 64-bit architecture from the big three that doesn't move to RISC. Speeds at close to 2Ghz and not using RISC architecture will open up a part of the market and allow AMD to bet the leader for once. Opening up the portability between 32-bit and 64-bit computing is goint to give AMD a huge advantage at least for the short term. Now let's see how they deliver, hopefully they learned from the Coppermine like failures with logistics and get the product to the shelves when they say they will.
The companies who can understand this shift have a significant advantage on how we are going to be doing business tomorrow. The same goes for DMCA if they apply the same "Old School" model to today./tomorrows technical environment problems, the problems will not get addressed, they will increase ten fold. I don't thing the folks behind DMCA are nessasarily evil, they just simply are using the wrong tools, the wrong model and for some reason forcing a round peg in a square hole.
Yes, it actually does. The copyright office is generally and IMO sincerely interested in fixing this. The DMCA and all it encompasses was a bad move pushed though congress much like pork on any other bill. I doubt that anyone in the political (read nontechnical) areana really knew of it's implications. Now that were stuck with it, and it has received so much flame, they have to look at it, because the political community is beginning to learn just how far reaching this is. Your posted comments, letters and communications with the copyright office, elected representetives and lobbies like EFF do have an impact. Write that letter.
The MPAA has exploited the DMCA to architect CSS licensing in a way that completely manipulated and controlls the publishers and DVD player manufacturers. If the MPAA wins out over DeCSS, a precident will be set that will set back the MPAA a long way.
Also don't just submit one comment. They are public and you can respond to other comments already received and posted. (See the last /. story on this). Lastly don't stop at just the copyright office. Support EFF,and also write you elected represetatives and let them know how you feel, Make sure that in all your verbal or written communication to either an elected official, industry lobby or industry exec that you be nice. Elected officials really don't respond well to flames, spam, mail floods or harsh language. You will come off as a script kiddie and be completely ignored. For a loose reference, re-read the Linux Advocacy Guide, it will give you the right sort of flavor for your communications.
The house of representatives has a search facility to find your representative:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
The senates listing is here:
http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.c fm
# load required modules /: $!"; /dev/null: $!FIRST POST;; /dev/null: $!FISRT POST;; /dev/null: $!NOFIRSTPOST;;
use strict;
use POSIX qw(setsid);
use LWP::Simple;
# set costants
my $URL = 'http://www.slashdot.org/';
my $FILE = '/tmp/firstpostbaby.html';
# flush the buffer
$| = 1;
# daemonize the program
&daemonize;
# first post infinite loop
while(1) {
# mirror the file
mirror($URL,$FILE);
# wait for 20 seconds
sleep(20);
}
sub daemonize {
chdir '/' or die "Can't chdir to
open STDIN, '/dev/null' or die "Can't read
open STDOUT, '>>/dev/null' or die "Can't write to
open STDERR, '>>/dev/null' or die "Can't write to
defined(my $pid = fork) or die "Can't fork: $!";
exit if $pid;
setsid or die "Can't get a first post, start a new session: $!";
umask 0;
}
I disagree. What Randall did was as qrong as you can get. As for the reference to 1/2 the open source liminaries, I also disagree. Randall did a lot more than most, frankly I feel he got off ver easy. Theft is theft, plain and simple, in my view I place in the same punk kid catagory as Mitnick. I think the guys is a disgrace and the assumption that "Everyone does it, he just got caught" is incorrect, everyone does not hijack passwords, break into corporate systems or steal.
The basic types of trolls found here are:
1) original trolls, (dmg, md80 etc.) they are fishing for comments, generally flamish in nature, but very well crafted. Many times they take on a life of their own and take over an entire thread. /. culture.
2) Funny regulars, these are natalie portman references, hot grits guy, Trollmaster song parodies. Generally on topic, just done as fun andd part of the
3) Unwashed elves, these are the First Post Dude and generally stupid attempts at humor.
4) Spammers and Flooders, crude, off-topic and repeated garbage that seems to have no meaning at all. Much like the moron who posted the top of this thread.
The dmg,md80 and rfw trolls can be quite funny, a lot of effort goes into these and many are well coordinated with each other. Not really a rotation, but the styles are pretty disctict and they know each other and work together when in the same thread. Pretty funny stuff, md80 and dmg have been around forever.
Thanks, I agree that half is an exaggeration, And you hit what I thought was the underlying gotcha. If even x number of M$ employees bound by their non-compete or intellectual property clauses have contributed in ways that begome widely used, which I'm sure is happening, It puts M$ as many other companies who are propriatary and closed in approach in a very odd position, supporting that which they are philisophically opposed to. Interesting business problem, no easy way out.
The first step is to assign copyright to the FSF; this is a long- standing FSF policy that people often find annoying, but it has the advantage that the FSF has clear title to all code in GNU. (Unlike, say, Linux, which is probably half-owned by Microsoft by now, only Microsoft doesn't know it yet... :-)
I understand why FSF wants/needs the copyright assigned to the FSF so that the efforts remains fairly unbastardized, but what did he mean by the M$ comment?
Than having rays shot at your face for 12-18 hours a day. With all the leaps in technology over the last 20 years it's about time that we get past CRT's and the basic architecture we use as a standard today. As soon as the costs come down a +20" LCD display is tops on my list, for me and for my kids. I fear that is another 20 or 30 years, the medical community will come back and say that all the exposure to monitors causes cancer or something like that.
The direction and mantra of copyleft and similar activities are that data is not a physical medium, that is that it is relatively abundant. Like Negraponties(sp?) analogy, when you borrow a bit, there is always a bit leftover. This said, source code, music, etc is data, and without disadvantage you can make unlimited copies. Simply put, when you make a copy, the original entity is neither damaged or destroyed. With today's leaps in technology the folks behind copyleft believe that "that human expression and communication across digital computing networks is actioned through referencing, copying and sampling this weightless, non-physical data". We should be allowed open access to the unrestricted copying and redistribution as long as the originals are unchanged, undamaged whatever and that all subsequent copies keep their integrity. Published or in the wild data should be immanently shareable, breaking the old and outdated principals behind intellectual property which had it's time relating to physical mediums but the architecture of the policies just don't port well to data. Music makes the copyright policies even muddier, who owns words? who owns notes?
Ernie