Re:Why all the iPhone hack-talk but none for Andro
on
IOS 4.1 Jailbroken Already
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
As an android user - let me enlighten you. The android platform is DESIGNED to be rootable and hackable, the phone made by the android developers - the Nexus 1 comes with rooting just a click away.
There ARE other manufacturers who try to make rooting harder - none of them have made it particularly impossible, I rooted mine in an hour. But you cannot blame this on the platform. It's not Android that made HTC obfuscate their bootloader, that is HTC's fault alone. In apple's case the hardware and software are always from the same source. In android's case it almost never is - so that adds an important distinction.
Finally - nobody roots their systems because we "have to in order to use a feature". We do it because by using thirdparty versions of android we can get certain features sooner, or run newer versions of the OS - or hell just enjoy having a root shell on our phones - some of us have FUN with that.
I rooted my HTC desire to get CyanoGenMod for Froyo 2.2 - about a week before HTC brought out an OTA update for Sense based on it. Didn't bug me much - I had no guarantee of said version coming now or ever, I had no wish to wait for it and I liked being able to upgrade when I wanted to. I also having now used both prefer CyanoGenMod over Sense - it's a stabler UI with less bugs and a cleaner, slicker interface to work with while still being the same essential android in it's core design (of course that part is a subjective judgement but speaking for myself - I prefer it).
Having rooted once - I now control the bootloader with my own recovery version and goldcard which means I can now install any rom code I want. I can swap at any time. I can backup the current rom try something else and restore it if I wanted to...
I like having power over my device. Apple actively tries to stop me getting it. Android actively encourages it and even when a device maker tries to follow the apple approach once broken it's broken for good - and without the associated risks of jailbreaking an iPhone. I'll still get updates, I will still get fixes because many third-parties provide them. I still have the official appmarket working just fine and I know it always will because google makes it freely available so modmakers can provide packages to install it (though they are not allowed to preinstall it inside the mod).
In short - the reason you see such a huge disconnect is because you're comparing apples with oranges. It only looks similar from a distance - in reality the two platforms approach to user restriction couldn't be further removed from each other and rooting an android is a much lesser deal than rooting an iphone. Iphone's are jailbroken to enable power the user should have had the choice to get in the first place. Androids are rooted because hacking devices is FUN.
>No, this is like sears fighting shoplifting by sending assassins after shoplifters.
It's worse than that. This is sears fighting shoplifting by nuking the neighbourhoods of shoplifters.
Remember the vast majority of servers out there are co-located hosting, often with multiple servers on the same physical machine.
DoS attack one of them and by default you are attacking all the others.
So somebody else hosting a server at my ISP is hosting copyrighted material of some sort - now MY server goes down because it happens to be on the same physical machine at the ISP - it's not like I have any way of knowing who the ISP's other customers are or how legal their content is do I ?
Require any company that does tracking to provide an application to any user which lists ALL information in the profile with a simple button that can delete any entry from it - and a delete all button as well.
This requires all of an hour's coding and one SQL statement in the background. It lets users choose what is tracked and trackable and clear any information they don't want tracked.
Then: some kind of system to prevent at least some deleted entries from being retracked later - perhaps you can't do that with keywords without ending up with storing it somewhere else for the user (which defeats the purpose) but you could at least classify information outside of that - e.g. known full names and such and if a user deletes such an entry mark it for "never collect this again".
Finally - make it compulsory that this delete action must also delete entries when backups are updated etc. Essentially the delete must be: permanent, non-reversible and complete. Failure to delete as such would be fraud (a criminal offense already) - so conveniently we have no need for a new criminal law, simply a reasonable regulation that if a company collects information on you they should give you the opportunity to review this information and remove from it anything they don't want you to have. The sheer scale of the internet and the user-base means that this is enough. You don't have to worry about an employee remembering the detail.
Oh and for the record - neither of these laws were passed due to economic concerns. They were passed because the government was fascistic. Ban private television companies and all the news people see can be sanctioned and censored. Ban private telecoms companies and you can easily listen in on anybody's phone calls.
It used to be a status symbol here to have your phone tapped - if you weren't tapped you were LITERALLY nobody.
You know - I'm a liberal as well - but I am not in favor of legally protected monopolys on things the private sector does better. Countries that do NOT make it illegal to run cable TV networks have, surprize surprize - almost all got cable tv networks.
So there is strong evidence to suggest that country like mine (which was at the time these laws were passed one of the richest in the world with a currency worth far more than the US dollar) would have had these things if they weren't BANNED.
Being liberal and in favor of controlling the market to prevent corporate abuse does NOT mean I have to be in favor of government abuse instead.
NOBODY should get to prevent ANYBODY from doing ANY business that isn't harmful.
That's exactly what they tried here - suffice to say, it didn't work. The "last-mile" part of the connection (the part you pay to the telecoms company) still makes up more then 90% of your total cost for internet. How MUCH more than 90% depends on which ISP and what plan you're on.
>One thing that really annoys me about Americans in these arguments is that you argue against both sides, if we allow people to make stupid suggestions we are infringing freedoms by supporting fascist ideals, if we censor such people we are infringing freedoms and supporting fascist ideals. Quite a good strawman dont you think?
Nope - the idea of free speech however doesn't end with "let the idiots speak their idiocy" - it kind of demands that you then reply and tell them why they are being idiots. You're confusing people shooting down the ideas of idiots with suggesting that the idiots should not be allowed to speak.
I live in a country where a state-owned monopoly (whose monopoly was protected by laws making competition illegal) ran the telecoms infrastructure for decades. They are today the only provider of ADSL lines, ISPs can sell on top of the infrastructure (but require a license) all other providers have to be wireless (also requiring an extremely expensive license that can be arbitrarily denied on application)...
Basically - don't do it. Forget filtering - there is nothing more horendous than a government supplied communications infrastructure. If we had an open market in this country we'd have had services like cable and fibre years ago.
Instead we are limited to copper adsl as the best there is, on an overcongested, slow network. Another government owned "corporation" was for years the only legal television provider. In 1986 one other company got a license to run a tv-channel. In the 90's said company got a license to do paid satelite, one more such satelite license has since been made available...
That's three television providers for the entire country - all of them over-the-air because cable would break the terms of the telecoms monopoly. About 3 years ago another company finally got a license allowing them provide telecoms services - the have the right to build lines etc. - they aren't doing it though, it would be impossible to compete with the existing network now - so they went wireless-phone instead.
Tell all your geek friends - that those of us who live in countries where the idea that the NBN is built on originated say: it's a really horrible idea.
The point is that I chose to give up those rights - and since many people do - it proves that automatic, universal copyright is stupid. If it was a sensible law NOBODY would use the GPL or CC licenses.
More-over since plagiarism applies to ALL creative works regardless of whether it's copyrighted or even copyrightable (fashion design cannot be copyrighted but it's still a crime to plagiarize them) is the crucial point.
I don't NEED copyright to prevent what the GP was proposing - it breaks OTHER laws anyway. In fact this is why there is no CC license that doesn't require attribution - under international law it's not POSSIBLE for a copyright license to grant that right. You can't give the right to plagiarize under copyright law because plagiarism ISN'T a matter of copyright.
>>Anticopying laws in contrast haven't been around that long,
>Since the 18th century.
In legal terms - that's yesterday. Most of the fundamental laws of our society date back to Roman times or earlier. That's why until very recently lawyers were still required to learn latin.,
>>and their net benefits to society aren't proven.
>What would you consider proof? How would you go about proving or disproving it?
Well their stated ultimate goal is to enlarge the public domain. Thus proof would be if the public domain today is bigger than it would likely be without them. Now interestingly due to things like regressive copyright extensions - the public domain today is significantly SMALLER than it would be without them. That would seem to be proof against their benefits to society. The catch is that I suspect the public domain in 1920 was bigger than it would be without them - which suggests proof in favor of them.
>Personally I think the principle of copyright is a good one, but one that has gotten way out of control. About a decade (depending on the object) of protection should be enough.
Which brings us to the conclusion - the benefits of copyright is contextual. It is dependent on how long it lasts, and on the context of creation as a whole (technology has a major influence on that context). In the years since 1920 copyright extensions has gotten increasingly longer and has long since passed the tipping point where they are increasing the public domain and are now effectively robbing it. Regressive extensions are the worst robbery of all -after all how on earth can any law made today increase the number of books written in 1950 ?
The other major contextual change is the internet in the last 20 years. It has radically changed the landscape of creativity and copyright law hasn't adapted to suit this - if anything it has gone directly counterpoint to what in this context would maximise the future size of the public domain. The article says "you can't democratize genius" - in fact crowd-sourcing proves that you can. The rip-remix-share culture has come up with some truly epic creations - all illegal, we're depriving our children their public domain not only by keeping everything created locked up but by actively banning new forms of creation that builds on this. More-over - the record companies may have been the best shot we had at getting some of the rare actual individual geniusses out there in the past - he is trying to toss out a red herring, because if there is something you really CAN democratize it's FINDING genius- that's the power of the internet. Among all those garage bands uploading their little songs hoping to get notice ARE some real geniusses - and they actually have a chance at discovery now that they never had before. If the old industry dies - their odds will go UP - not down.
Does more than 40 GPL'd software projects and Help|About listed contributions to another 200-odd work for you over a period of more than 12 years work for you ?
The only reason they are GPL'd and not public domain is to make sure they STAY available. I would rather prefer NOT to put them in the public domain just so $CORPORATION can change them a bit, copyright it and take away the rights I wanted you to have.
So actually - most of us arguing for a change in copyright law is DEPENDENT for our incomes right now on works that are traditionally covered by copyright. We also believe that we can make a living WITHOUT exploiting our customers rights. The fact that the music-mafia doesn't want to lose their position of privilege isn't much of a counterargument to us.
South Africa passed a law along the same lines last year - requiring all cellphone users to present not only proof of identity but proof of residential address (it's known as the RICA law) a similiar law (FICA) has been in place for bank accounts for several years.
Both laws are in theory supposed to help combat crime (make it harder for criminals to get false bank accounts to store their profits and such) - and because of the size of our crime laws South Africans frankly don't seem to CARE about privacy. The few of us who do just don't matter as the majority of the population actively supports anything that might reduce the likelihood of a carjacking (including having Johannesburg almost as camera-covered as London). The sad thing is - none of these laws have made us any safer - it's just made us a lot less free... but then those of us who have read a little wider (for example the works of Benjamin Franklin) knew that before it was done...
>I dispute your claim that open source was regularly or typically used within the software development sphere prior to 1998.
>Quite clearly you weren't around back then, otherwise you would know that it is idiotic to dispute it.
You are aware that word context is also GEOGRAPHIC ? I am not from the USA - perhaps it was in use there, but it most certainly wasn't in use in my country - and I have never found a written reference to the term dating back any earlier than 1998 (and I read a LOT).
>>I have NO doubt in my mind that we can safely demand the phrase open source today must only be used for software licensed under OSI approved licenses because that usage is now so well established that any time you use the phrase for something that doesn't meet those criteria you ARE trying to mislead.
>Hence the reason there is 'open source' and 'Open Source'. We're actually going to let capitalization be a nice excuse to get around the requirements ? You do KNOW that capitalization cannot be pronounced right ? So... blind people are fair game for deception ?
>>The word in context have come to mean for the vast majority of people in the industry "as defined by the OSI". Any other use IS now deceitful.
>Bullshit, just because you're new to the industry and don't know any better doesn't mean you can claim use of the OSI term outside of the OSI context is deceitful, as you said 'context is everything'.
I am not new to the industry - I have been working in software for nearly 2 decades and with GNU/Linux in particular since 1993. What I am not, is an American. But that still changes nothing. Words change meaning - it's been 12 YEARS since the word as we use it was coined and it's become the established meaning -get over it.
>>Now it's not fraud to use a term in a press-release to describe something that does not meet the definition most of your audience will expect it to have - but it IS deceitful and it definitely IS false advertising.
>Again, that's why we have 'open source' being the traditional meaning outside of the OSI's trademarked, licensing-burdened term. So no, it is not false advertising, it would be false advertising to use 'Open Source' in the OSI context.
Again - if the only difference is capitalization then I put it to you that the difference does not exist.
>>Context is everything.
>Yes! In the OSI context you take the OSI definition, NOT in the broader software development community.
Defined by you as "only people who have developed for more than 20 years" ? If you go by "the widest understood meaning of the phrase among developers today" then I win. And that is the only definition of a word that any actual linguist would EVER consider. In fact, that's almost to a word the requirements the OED uses to decide which new words (and new word-meanings) go in the dictionary: a word must have been used in that specific way for at least 5 years, and the majority of people within the specific context should recognize it for the meaning it is being suggested for. On the contrary, the most important linguists in the world give NO weight to the HISTORIC meaning of words. They are recorded (so when we read an old document we can check what the word meant at the time) but they are NOT held as the meaning of the word TODAY.
>>there is no point in debating with you at all
>Wow, that lasted. Your response actually gave me something worth replying to - unlike the one before it.
>Someone (Fleming) accidentally noticed that bacteria didn't grow around penicillin mold decided that this could work inside the body. As the time penicillin was discovered, we had little knowledge of how it actually worked.
No. This is bullshit. Fleming was a scientist who was studying bread-mould (as a fungus) to learn more about it. Among other things he did was to try and determine what sort of defense mechanisms it has (after all the defense mechanisms an organism evolves give good insights into it's history, what kind of predators it has etc.) Fleming was well aware that fungus and bacteria are natural enemies so he introduced various bacteria to the fungus and studied the results UNDER A MICROSCOPE to see how the fungus would try and defend itself. He learned that upon being attacked by bacteria the fungus excreted a chemical that very effectively killed of the attacking bacteria. This chemical is what we call pennicilin. It's discovery wasn't through medical testing directly but through biological research - but it WAS real scientific research. Fleming then proposed to others that the substance the fungus excreted could perhaps be useful for fighting bacteria attacking humans - and working with real doctors developed penicilin into a drug.
So while the active ingredient wasn't discovered by a pharmacologist the actual discovery was a result of real scientific research, of genuine study of the world. It was not some... silly accident like you describe.
This is partly why google is changing some things in the design of android. It will reduce how much devices can differentiate their interfaces - but it is meant to ensure that when a new version comes out ALL the android phones can get it immediately.
I fully understand why they are going there, though I can also see the downsides.... interesting times ahead.
There are licenses that are free software approved but not OSI approved but also there are (far more) licenses that are OSI approved that do not (and never will) have FSF approval. Because the two organisations have very different goals and values. There is sufficient overlap that MOST open-source is also free software, but not all and I think the wider community (at least that section of it which knows both terms) generally understand this very well.
I dispute your claim that open source was regularly or typically used within the software development sphere prior to 1998. When it was coined by Christine from Netscape it was adopted because it wasn't a term with previous usage, but it nevertheless made it's primary value quite clear as that is very close to the common-speech meaning of the phrase.
In a different context an "open source" could mean a leak in a tank causing bacterial infections (the source of the infection is unsealed and thus open). Context is everything. I have NO doubt in my mind that we can safely demand the phrase open source today must only be used for software licensed under OSI approved licenses because that usage is now so well established that any time you use the phrase for something that doesn't meet those criteria you ARE trying to mislead. I see absolutely no reason why an argument about semantics and linguistics is even relevant, it doesn't matter what a word CAN mean. When somebody uses a phrase that he knows his audience will attach a certain meaning to, knowing that what he is describing doesn't fit that meaning - he cannot claim "but it COULD mean that" - he is STILL trying to deceive people.
This is why when you write a contract you are expected to define terms in the context of the contract (that's why you see things like "Doctor Fred Mbogo (Hereafter: the lessor)", it's a legal requirement - to prevent ambiguous terms from being used for fraud. If you trick somebody into signing a contract which he thinks means one thing (and you encourage him to think that) knowing full well that it says something else and that you intend to enforce these terms which the signer didn't know he was signing for - that is a well established example of outright fraud.
Now it's not fraud to use a term in a press-release to describe something that does not meet the definition most of your audience will expect it to have - but it IS deceitful and it definitely IS false advertising. Sorry but even if open-source had been used all the way back to Ada Lovelace it wouldn't make one ounce of difference here. The word in context have come to mean for the vast majority of people in the industry "as defined by the OSI". Any other use IS now deceitful.
Okay, I'm glad we agree that free software is a better term - though it's a radically different concept because free software is a user-focussed movement while open source focuses on developers and practical advantages only. But sadly, there is no point in debating with you at all because you haven't read a single thing I wrote... I already addressed and debunked all the points you made about the term open source - and showed you the reasons why your "common sense" approach here is just not TRUE. I have no desire to do it all over again.
I use "free software" as a rule because that's the movement I believe in. This doesn't change the fact that when a term has a well defined meaning as a term-of-art in it's field and somebody then claims something conforms to this term because it meets the less specific criteria of a common-speech definition that this is ignorance at best, outright fraud at worst.
To refer to a program as open-source when it clearly does not meet the definition of open-source as a term-of-art within software development is an attempt to mislead. I won't claim the author of the program or, for that matter of the summary, was DELIBERATELY misleading - it's just as likely they simply didn't know that open-source is a defined term-of-art with a more specific meaning than the two words it's made out of would suggest. In either case correcting this is important. If the author in response to this either (1) changes the license to meet the definition [this is easiest achieved by using one already approved by the OSI] or (2) stops using the term open source to describe it (Microsoft opted for this approach when they came up with shared-source) then we can safely assume that it was merely ignorance. If he persists and refuses to correct - we must then assume that he is deliberately attempting to mislead the public, which is at the very least false advertising.
>Open source is open source, meaning you can see the code. What's so hard about that?
The fact that it's just not true. The word has a definition.
How can I put this ? If it doesn't quack like a duck, it doesn't look like a duck, it doesn't walk like a duck - then the fact that it's waterbird isn't enough to make it a duck.
Slashdot Mirror
As an android user - let me enlighten you.
The android platform is DESIGNED to be rootable and hackable, the phone made by the android developers - the Nexus 1 comes with rooting just a click away.
There ARE other manufacturers who try to make rooting harder - none of them have made it particularly impossible, I rooted mine in an hour. But you cannot blame this on the platform. It's not Android that made HTC obfuscate their bootloader, that is HTC's fault alone. In apple's case the hardware and software are always from the same source. In android's case it almost never is - so that adds an important distinction.
Finally - nobody roots their systems because we "have to in order to use a feature". We do it because by using thirdparty versions of android we can get certain features sooner, or run newer versions of the OS - or hell just enjoy having a root shell on our phones - some of us have FUN with that.
I rooted my HTC desire to get CyanoGenMod for Froyo 2.2 - about a week before HTC brought out an OTA update for Sense based on it. Didn't bug me much - I had no guarantee of said version coming now or ever, I had no wish to wait for it and I liked being able to upgrade when I wanted to. I also having now used both prefer CyanoGenMod over Sense - it's a stabler UI with less bugs and a cleaner, slicker interface to work with while still being the same essential android in it's core design (of course that part is a subjective judgement but speaking for myself - I prefer it).
Having rooted once - I now control the bootloader with my own recovery version and goldcard which means I can now install any rom code I want. I can swap at any time. I can backup the current rom try something else and restore it if I wanted to...
I like having power over my device. Apple actively tries to stop me getting it. Android actively encourages it and even when a device maker tries to follow the apple approach once broken it's broken for good - and without the associated risks of jailbreaking an iPhone. I'll still get updates, I will still get fixes because many third-parties provide them. I still have the official appmarket working just fine and I know it always will because google makes it freely available so modmakers can provide packages to install it (though they are not allowed to preinstall it inside the mod).
In short - the reason you see such a huge disconnect is because you're comparing apples with oranges. It only looks similar from a distance - in reality the two platforms approach to user restriction couldn't be further removed from each other and rooting an android is a much lesser deal than rooting an iphone.
Iphone's are jailbroken to enable power the user should have had the choice to get in the first place.
Androids are rooted because hacking devices is FUN.
>trigger my SLR camera (via IR),
Ooooh WANT. What's the name of the app you use for that ? Any idea if it's available for androids ?
Basically it's two bunches of idiots fighting over who is insulting whose imaginary friend the loudest.
>No, this is like sears fighting shoplifting by sending assassins after shoplifters.
It's worse than that. This is sears fighting shoplifting by nuking the neighbourhoods of shoplifters.
Remember the vast majority of servers out there are co-located hosting, often with multiple servers on the same physical machine.
DoS attack one of them and by default you are attacking all the others.
So somebody else hosting a server at my ISP is hosting copyrighted material of some sort - now MY server goes down because it happens to be on the same physical machine at the ISP - it's not like I have any way of knowing who the ISP's other customers are or how legal their content is do I ?
That's a start - but it could be better.
Require any company that does tracking to provide an application to any user which lists ALL information in the profile with a simple button that can delete any entry from it - and a delete all button as well.
This requires all of an hour's coding and one SQL statement in the background. It lets users choose what is tracked and trackable and clear any information they don't want tracked.
Then: some kind of system to prevent at least some deleted entries from being retracked later - perhaps you can't do that with keywords without ending up with storing it somewhere else for the user (which defeats the purpose) but you could at least classify information outside of that - e.g. known full names and such and if a user deletes such an entry mark it for "never collect this again".
Finally - make it compulsory that this delete action must also delete entries when backups are updated etc. Essentially the delete must be: permanent, non-reversible and complete.
Failure to delete as such would be fraud (a criminal offense already) - so conveniently we have no need for a new criminal law, simply a reasonable regulation that if a company collects information on you they should give you the opportunity to review this information and remove from it anything they don't want you to have.
The sheer scale of the internet and the user-base means that this is enough. You don't have to worry about an employee remembering the detail.
Oh and for the record - neither of these laws were passed due to economic concerns. They were passed because the government was fascistic. Ban private television companies and all the news people see can be sanctioned and censored. Ban private telecoms companies and you can easily listen in on anybody's phone calls.
It used to be a status symbol here to have your phone tapped - if you weren't tapped you were LITERALLY nobody.
You know - I'm a liberal as well - but I am not in favor of legally protected monopolys on things the private sector does better. Countries that do NOT make it illegal to run cable TV networks have, surprize surprize - almost all got cable tv networks.
So there is strong evidence to suggest that country like mine (which was at the time these laws were passed one of the richest in the world with a currency worth far more than the US dollar) would have had these things if they weren't BANNED.
Being liberal and in favor of controlling the market to prevent corporate abuse does NOT mean I have to be in favor of government abuse instead.
NOBODY should get to prevent ANYBODY from doing ANY business that isn't harmful.
That's exactly what they tried here - suffice to say, it didn't work.
The "last-mile" part of the connection (the part you pay to the telecoms company) still makes up more then 90% of your total cost for internet. How MUCH more than 90% depends on which ISP and what plan you're on.
>One thing that really annoys me about Americans in these arguments is that you argue against both sides, if we allow people to make stupid suggestions we are infringing freedoms by supporting fascist ideals, if we censor such people we are infringing freedoms and supporting fascist ideals. Quite a good strawman dont you think?
Nope - the idea of free speech however doesn't end with "let the idiots speak their idiocy" - it kind of demands that you then reply and tell them why they are being idiots.
You're confusing people shooting down the ideas of idiots with suggesting that the idiots should not be allowed to speak.
I live in a country where a state-owned monopoly (whose monopoly was protected by laws making competition illegal) ran the telecoms infrastructure for decades.
They are today the only provider of ADSL lines, ISPs can sell on top of the infrastructure (but require a license) all other providers have to be wireless (also requiring an extremely expensive license that can be arbitrarily denied on application)...
Basically - don't do it. Forget filtering - there is nothing more horendous than a government supplied communications infrastructure. If we had an open market in this country we'd have had services like cable and fibre years ago.
Instead we are limited to copper adsl as the best there is, on an overcongested, slow network. Another government owned "corporation" was for years the only legal television provider. In 1986 one other company got a license to run a tv-channel. In the 90's said company got a license to do paid satelite, one more such satelite license has since been made available...
That's three television providers for the entire country - all of them over-the-air because cable would break the terms of the telecoms monopoly. About 3 years ago another company finally got a license allowing them provide telecoms services - the have the right to build lines etc. - they aren't doing it though, it would be impossible to compete with the existing network now - so they went wireless-phone instead.
Tell all your geek friends - that those of us who live in countries where the idea that the NBN is built on originated say: it's a really horrible idea.
>we stopped giggling at penal because it sounds like penis.
Speak for yourself...
The point is that I chose to give up those rights - and since many people do - it proves that automatic, universal copyright is stupid. If it was a sensible law NOBODY would use the GPL or CC licenses.
More-over since plagiarism applies to ALL creative works regardless of whether it's copyrighted or even copyrightable (fashion design cannot be copyrighted but it's still a crime to plagiarize them) is the crucial point.
I don't NEED copyright to prevent what the GP was proposing - it breaks OTHER laws anyway. In fact this is why there is no CC license that doesn't require attribution - under international law it's not POSSIBLE for a copyright license to grant that right. You can't give the right to plagiarize under copyright law because plagiarism ISN'T a matter of copyright.
>>Anticopying laws in contrast haven't been around that long,
>Since the 18th century.
In legal terms - that's yesterday. Most of the fundamental laws of our society date back to Roman times or earlier. That's why until very recently lawyers were still required to learn latin.,
>>and their net benefits to society aren't proven.
>What would you consider proof? How would you go about proving or disproving it?
Well their stated ultimate goal is to enlarge the public domain. Thus proof would be if the public domain today is bigger than it would likely be without them.
Now interestingly due to things like regressive copyright extensions - the public domain today is significantly SMALLER than it would be without them.
That would seem to be proof against their benefits to society. The catch is that I suspect the public domain in 1920 was bigger than it would be without them - which suggests proof in favor of them.
>Personally I think the principle of copyright is a good one, but one that has gotten way out of control. About a decade (depending on the object) of protection should be enough.
Which brings us to the conclusion - the benefits of copyright is contextual. It is dependent on how long it lasts, and on the context of creation as a whole (technology has a major influence on that context). In the years since 1920 copyright extensions has gotten increasingly longer and has long since passed the tipping point where they are increasing the public domain and are now effectively robbing it. Regressive extensions are the worst robbery of all -after all how on earth can any law made today increase the number of books written in 1950 ?
The other major contextual change is the internet in the last 20 years. It has radically changed the landscape of creativity and copyright law hasn't adapted to suit this - if anything it has gone directly counterpoint to what in this context would maximise the future size of the public domain.
The article says "you can't democratize genius" - in fact crowd-sourcing proves that you can. The rip-remix-share culture has come up with some truly epic creations - all illegal, we're depriving our children their public domain not only by keeping everything created locked up but by actively banning new forms of creation that builds on this.
More-over - the record companies may have been the best shot we had at getting some of the rare actual individual geniusses out there in the past - he is trying to toss out a red herring, because if there is something you really CAN democratize it's FINDING genius- that's the power of the internet.
Among all those garage bands uploading their little songs hoping to get notice ARE some real geniusses - and they actually have a chance at discovery now that they never had before. If the old industry dies - their odds will go UP - not down.
You're welcome to that with mine - hell use my blog: http://silentcoder.co.za/
Only thing is - credit me with a link. I give you permission to copy. I don't give you permission to plagiarize.
In fact - the content is already under a CC license so I've already given that permission to EVERYBODY who goes there.
You seem to confuse copyright law with plagiarism law. Their not the same thing.
Does more than 40 GPL'd software projects and Help|About listed contributions to another 200-odd work for you over a period of more than 12 years work for you ?
The only reason they are GPL'd and not public domain is to make sure they STAY available. I would rather prefer NOT to put them in the public domain just so $CORPORATION can change them a bit, copyright it and take away the rights I wanted you to have.
So actually - most of us arguing for a change in copyright law is DEPENDENT for our incomes right now on works that are traditionally covered by copyright. We also believe that we can make a living WITHOUT exploiting our customers rights. The fact that the music-mafia doesn't want to lose their position of privilege isn't much of a counterargument to us.
>Notice that they're too busy working on finding holes in Chrome to be working on Adobe products ;)
That's because unlike Adobe, Google actually PAYS them to find holes :P
>I see. So that's why I keep my passwords stored in my head. No virus that can live in my head can read my passwords out of there, AFAIK.
In other news Hacker Geneticists start breeding Meningitus that can talk...
South Africa passed a law along the same lines last year - requiring all cellphone users to present not only proof of identity but proof of residential address (it's known as the RICA law) a similiar law (FICA) has been in place for bank accounts for several years.
Both laws are in theory supposed to help combat crime (make it harder for criminals to get false bank accounts to store their profits and such) - and because of the size of our crime laws South Africans frankly don't seem to CARE about privacy. The few of us who do just don't matter as the majority of the population actively supports anything that might reduce the likelihood of a carjacking (including having Johannesburg almost as camera-covered as London).
The sad thing is - none of these laws have made us any safer - it's just made us a lot less free... but then those of us who have read a little wider (for example the works of Benjamin Franklin) knew that before it was done...
>I dispute your claim that open source was regularly or typically used within the software development sphere prior to 1998.
>Quite clearly you weren't around back then, otherwise you would know that it is idiotic to dispute it.
You are aware that word context is also GEOGRAPHIC ? I am not from the USA - perhaps it was in use there, but it most certainly wasn't in use in my country - and I have never found a written reference to the term dating back any earlier than 1998 (and I read a LOT).
>>I have NO doubt in my mind that we can safely demand the phrase open source today must only be used for software licensed under OSI approved licenses because that usage is now so well established that any time you use the phrase for something that doesn't meet those criteria you ARE trying to mislead.
>Hence the reason there is 'open source' and 'Open Source'. ... blind people are fair game for deception ?
We're actually going to let capitalization be a nice excuse to get around the requirements ? You do KNOW that capitalization cannot be pronounced right ? So
>>The word in context have come to mean for the vast majority of people in the industry "as defined by the OSI". Any other use IS now deceitful.
>Bullshit, just because you're new to the industry and don't know any better doesn't mean you can claim use of the OSI term outside of the OSI context is deceitful, as you said 'context is everything'.
I am not new to the industry - I have been working in software for nearly 2 decades and with GNU/Linux in particular since 1993. What I am not, is an American. But that still changes nothing. Words change meaning - it's been 12 YEARS since the word as we use it was coined and it's become the established meaning -get over it.
>>Now it's not fraud to use a term in a press-release to describe something that does not meet the definition most of your audience will expect it to have - but it IS deceitful and it definitely IS false advertising.
>Again, that's why we have 'open source' being the traditional meaning outside of the OSI's trademarked, licensing-burdened term. So no, it is not false advertising, it would be false advertising to use 'Open Source' in the OSI context.
Again - if the only difference is capitalization then I put it to you that the difference does not exist.
>>Context is everything.
>Yes! In the OSI context you take the OSI definition, NOT in the broader software development community.
Defined by you as "only people who have developed for more than 20 years" ? If you go by "the widest understood meaning of the phrase among developers today" then I win. And that is the only definition of a word that any actual linguist would EVER consider. In fact, that's almost to a word the requirements the OED uses to decide which new words (and new word-meanings) go in the dictionary: a word must have been used in that specific way for at least 5 years, and the majority of people within the specific context should recognize it for the meaning it is being suggested for.
On the contrary, the most important linguists in the world give NO weight to the HISTORIC meaning of words. They are recorded (so when we read an old document we can check what the word meant at the time) but they are NOT held as the meaning of the word TODAY.
>>there is no point in debating with you at all
>Wow, that lasted.
Your response actually gave me something worth replying to - unlike the one before it.
>Someone (Fleming) accidentally noticed that bacteria didn't grow around penicillin mold decided that this could work inside the body. As the time penicillin was discovered, we had little knowledge of how it actually worked.
No. This is bullshit. Fleming was a scientist who was studying bread-mould (as a fungus) to learn more about it. Among other things he did was to try and determine what sort of defense mechanisms it has (after all the defense mechanisms an organism evolves give good insights into it's history, what kind of predators it has etc.)
Fleming was well aware that fungus and bacteria are natural enemies so he introduced various bacteria to the fungus and studied the results UNDER A MICROSCOPE to see how the fungus would try and defend itself. He learned that upon being attacked by bacteria the fungus excreted a chemical that very effectively killed of the attacking bacteria.
This chemical is what we call pennicilin. It's discovery wasn't through medical testing directly but through biological research - but it WAS real scientific research. Fleming then proposed to others that the substance the fungus excreted could perhaps be useful for fighting bacteria attacking humans - and working with real doctors developed penicilin into a drug.
So while the active ingredient wasn't discovered by a pharmacologist the actual discovery was a result of real scientific research, of genuine study of the world. It was not some ... silly accident like you describe.
This is partly why google is changing some things in the design of android. It will reduce how much devices can differentiate their interfaces - but it is meant to ensure that when a new version comes out ALL the android phones can get it immediately.
I fully understand why they are going there, though I can also see the downsides.... interesting times ahead.
There are licenses that are free software approved but not OSI approved but also there are (far more) licenses that are OSI approved that do not (and never will) have FSF approval. Because the two organisations have very different goals and values. There is sufficient overlap that MOST open-source is also free software, but not all and I think the wider community (at least that section of it which knows both terms) generally understand this very well.
I dispute your claim that open source was regularly or typically used within the software development sphere prior to 1998. When it was coined by Christine from Netscape it was adopted because it wasn't a term with previous usage, but it nevertheless made it's primary value quite clear as that is very close to the common-speech meaning of the phrase.
In a different context an "open source" could mean a leak in a tank causing bacterial infections (the source of the infection is unsealed and thus open). Context is everything.
I have NO doubt in my mind that we can safely demand the phrase open source today must only be used for software licensed under OSI approved licenses because that usage is now so well established that any time you use the phrase for something that doesn't meet those criteria you ARE trying to mislead.
I see absolutely no reason why an argument about semantics and linguistics is even relevant, it doesn't matter what a word CAN mean. When somebody uses a phrase that he knows his audience will attach a certain meaning to, knowing that what he is describing doesn't fit that meaning - he cannot claim "but it COULD mean that" - he is STILL trying to deceive people.
This is why when you write a contract you are expected to define terms in the context of the contract (that's why you see things like "Doctor Fred Mbogo (Hereafter: the lessor)", it's a legal requirement - to prevent ambiguous terms from being used for fraud. If you trick somebody into signing a contract which he thinks means one thing (and you encourage him to think that) knowing full well that it says something else and that you intend to enforce these terms which the signer didn't know he was signing for - that is a well established example of outright fraud.
Now it's not fraud to use a term in a press-release to describe something that does not meet the definition most of your audience will expect it to have - but it IS deceitful and it definitely IS false advertising.
Sorry but even if open-source had been used all the way back to Ada Lovelace it wouldn't make one ounce of difference here. The word in context have come to mean for the vast majority of people in the industry "as defined by the OSI". Any other use IS now deceitful.
Okay, I'm glad we agree that free software is a better term - though it's a radically different concept because free software is a user-focussed movement while open source focuses on developers and practical advantages only.
But sadly, there is no point in debating with you at all because you haven't read a single thing I wrote... I already addressed and debunked all the points you made about the term open source - and showed you the reasons why your "common sense" approach here is just not TRUE. I have no desire to do it all over again.
I use "free software" as a rule because that's the movement I believe in. This doesn't change the fact that when a term has a well defined meaning as a term-of-art in it's field and somebody then claims something conforms to this term because it meets the less specific criteria of a common-speech definition that this is ignorance at best, outright fraud at worst.
To refer to a program as open-source when it clearly does not meet the definition of open-source as a term-of-art within software development is an attempt to mislead. I won't claim the author of the program or, for that matter of the summary, was DELIBERATELY misleading - it's just as likely they simply didn't know that open-source is a defined term-of-art with a more specific meaning than the two words it's made out of would suggest. In either case correcting this is important.
If the author in response to this either (1) changes the license to meet the definition [this is easiest achieved by using one already approved by the OSI] or (2) stops using the term open source to describe it (Microsoft opted for this approach when they came up with shared-source) then we can safely assume that it was merely ignorance.
If he persists and refuses to correct - we must then assume that he is deliberately attempting to mislead the public, which is at the very least false advertising.
>Open source is open source, meaning you can see the code. What's so hard about that?
The fact that it's just not true. The word has a definition.
How can I put this ? If it doesn't quack like a duck, it doesn't look like a duck, it doesn't walk like a duck - then the fact that it's waterbird isn't enough to make it a duck.