This is obviously not possible with Open-Source, since permission to use the program is implicit; if the software exists you have permission to use it.
This is not true.
Yes, it is. Open Source means I can copy any or all of the source code for use in my derivitave work -- so I copy all of it and compile the program as "mine" and it's mine. It's still open source, but I have a right to use it 'cause it's my open-source program, based on yours. Since I have your source, I can reverse-engineer or remove any reliance on external services, cryptograhpic license codes or hardware copy protection schemes -- and it's legal 'cause it's my software, based on yours.
You may object that your license can control my right to use, but that means you're not using an open-source license, so the argument collapses.
The point is that offering Open Source software requires a company to find a different revenue stream than selling the software. The software must become an enabler for some other unique offering of product or service, that's based on tangible objects or labor. It's entirely possible to charge on the basis of labor for the software, you just have to collect up front or as-you-go, and be willing to forgo profits where others choose to supply the labor rather than purchase it from you.
Sorry, I have problems with your use of "narrative" and "completed" in connection with this motion picture. I would have said "cacophony" and "assembled". Otherwise, you nailed it.
Oracle's license treats concentrators similarly. Any app server, web server or other server that collects information at the demand of a user or users and disseminates it is considered a concentrator, and all its users clients. Oracle charges a price-per-MHz for your database server for internet connection.
However, downloading data into Word and producing the web page is kosher, as is publishing static reports prepared by a single user (or, by extension, by a batch process).
Don't forget liability. Your errors may or may not be disclaimable. However, by providing the source, you have a stronger case to disclaim responsibility for errors, since the user has the same opportunity to find them, and the same risk, as you do. Also, if you get lots of submissions and use a Linux-like model where the authors retain ownership, you get dilution -- there are many eyes on the code and many are responsible for the bugs.
We do this with other States (I work for North Carolina) on a share-by-request basis. We get the benefits of other States' and public instituitons' contributions to the project, and they get a leg up on the project by borrowing our code. If this software is something that could be widely used in your industry, open source could be a way to get free developer time on the project, in return for the donation of a part-time project manager. Chances are you have a person assigned to the project anyways, so you're getting a lot for a little, provided everyone plays fair.
How about these reasons for the producer to port --
All my programmers are more productive on an OS that doesn't crash every time they make a mistake.
Using open libraries, I can pick up that geek market, which has extra cash and enough ethics to maybe not share my game with the neighborhood (since a bunch of them program for a living).
I can isolate OS bugs from game bugs -- less test time!
People who play my games don't like smacking into the blue screen, and I can't control the factors that cause it.
But that requires land, time, effort and expense at the same level as the farmer (or the bugs and birds get 'em, or they're low quality). You've earned the right to redistribute.
Try it some time -- after a couple of seasons you'll be ready to charge too (or at least you'll be losing money).
Today I wrenched my back while placing my CSS protected DVD of Apocalypse Now in my DVD player. While I do not suggest the plaintiffs were responsible for this deplorable incedent, had the CSS protection been absent I could have played the DVD in my computer, which runs Linux and is at a height that does not require me to bend over. I recently posted an anti-MPAA post on Slashdot, and this deplorable incedent reinforces my claim that CSS is harmful and inflicts needless pain on programmers everywhere. (strange but true -- feel free to forward to the judge)
Standard was building its monopoly. You don't let a mass murderer finish killing everyone in the room before arresting him.
Standard was undercutting prices by accepting a loss in non-consolidated areas and offsetting that loss with unfairly high prices in areas that were entirely under SO control. MS does the same thing with software (IE was supported by OS and Office sales -- and do you remember the huge competetive upgrade discounts for Office?)
What's unfair about this is that SO didn't have anything the other companies had except (initially) capital and (subsequently) a chance to squeeze consumers. SO did try to raise prices too high, and people did turn to other sources. But no-one could build an effective electric car in that era, and if they had SO would have used their capital to interfere (buy and divest, start a competing line at a loss until the upstarts run out of capital, etc). MS has done this too. Who heard of IE before there was a browser market? Anyone remember Stac? There's a classic illegal act -- MS settles a suit for stealing Stac's code, then buys the company and fires everyone.
In the case of AT&T, it was necessary to permit a monopoly in the beginning, because you had to have a wire from every phone to the central office. Streets were literally being closed due to telephone and electric wiring. Later on someone figured out a way to multiplex and switch signals, so that the same wire could server a bunch of signals bound for different destinations. This made competition possible, but the existance of the monopoly stifled competition, innovation and customer service until it was clear that competition could exist, and the monopoly was broken up. You had to pay the phone company around $300 for an answering machine in 1970, because you weren't allowed to hook up just any machine to your phone line. The cost for technology was almost exactly the same in 1980, when they were $30. Why didn't Ma Bell offer $30 answering machines? They were the phone company. They didn't have to. Why doesn't Office conform to the RTF standard? They're Microsoft. They don't have to.
If companies compete on the merits of their products and one loses, that's OK. But the anti-trust laws are there so that one company can't just run over competitors that have better products and ideas.
It seems to me that creating an mp3 encoder or decoder in clean room is legal without having to pay a license fee. But if you "borrowed" the algorithms that have been patented, then you need to pay up.
Um... no. You cannot clean room a patent. If your code does what their code does (performs the algorithm even if it doesn't look the same) you're cooked. To get around a patent, you must find an algorithm that is substantially different (an improvement) from the patented one. In terms of compression and encoding to a standard format this is essentially impossible, as a sufficiently different algorithm would very, very likely produce a different output.
Of course, if you succeed, you can patent yours...
Yup. A thicker atmosphere might go a long way to explaining things too. Esp. if the Yucatan impact blew away some of it. Or maybe dinosaurs were filled with helium?
Mr. Dickinson is aware of the hidden nature of this discussion (his remarks in the article make that readily apparent) and his remarks also seem to indicate that he doesn't feel that's at all a bad thing, that he basically sees the fact that Open Source is a grass-roots movement and thus doesn't have unlimited funding is a failing of the movement and should rightly result in the movement having no voice in a process that he vigorously defends as being by the lawyers, of the lawyers, and for the lawyers.
Before we put him against the wall (not that we shouldn't, but before) let's remember that he didn't create the system, and he doesn't have a whole lot of leeway in how it works. Patent law is pretty patchy. I think it's mostly OK, except for a few of the provisions for what's patentable.
But the law allows patent claims that are exceedingly convoluted and arcane. The main reason it's "of the lawyers"... etc. is that a lot of legal jargon is used to make the claim incomprehensible. Remember when they posted Transmeta's claims? You can't do your own patent search, 'cause you could be staring right at a conflicting claim and not recognize it. Sometimes I wonder if they're just trying to confuse the PTO into giving up and issuing the patent.
I think part of patent reform will have to be fully-defined, simplified language, as well as an industry review for obviousness. In the meantime, the advice he gave you is about as far as he can go in print. Otherwise you might write an RSA implementation and point to his advice, as a defense:-).
These are the extra control lines, not power lines. They're already transmitting the signals that control and communicate between the switches and stations on the railroad. Oddly, I don't recall reading about a large number of storm-related deaths amongst railroad employees in India, but then, we don't get much news from there.
They're probably at least as good as telephone lines, and probably better, as a downed phone line doesn't derail a million dollars worth of rolling stock and kill a bunch of passengers;-).
C'mon. What do most people do with this powerful learning tool? They pirate MP3s, buy stuff, and download gigabytes of porn.
You remind me of Minerva ("Veto, baby") Mayflower from Hudson Hawk:-).
Oddly enough, I don't use the web to pirate MP3's. The stuff I buy on the web is not at my local store (nor, I imagine, is it trucked through India by itinerant peddlers). And I do use it to participate in discussions with people who just don't think things through (present company excepted, of course:).
Bandits steal copper from the poles in the middle of nowhere, so they have plenty of time to run away. The rails are patrolled regularly, and kiosks will be in businesses, railway stations or private homes, where they're much harder to steal.
And doctors are more expensive than you seem to think. I'd bet (some number much less than 10,000) doctors would probably cost more than using the Internet to get basic health and contraception information to all the "internet ladies" in India. In a country of more than a billion, 10,000 doctors would be a drop in the bucket... especially if they have to order supplies by mail:-).
CNN (the talking head, sorry no link) just told me it would be a Gecko-based browser, which leads me to believe that you won't be running XTerms on this pad. They're probably using a custom browser based application built on Gecko (that part of Mozilla works pretty well) with Linux as the stable operating system.
Why is there no patent on using the phone to get the correct time? I'll tell you why: BECAUSE IT'S FREEKING OBVIOUS.
I think this goes to the heart of it, and where they were talking at cross purposes. Every time Tim talked about obviousness, Dickenson talked about prior art. I agree that the patent office should only consider published material as prior art, but obviousness is a much fuzzier thing, apparently.
I'd have thought you could show obviousness if someone tried to patent a standard mail-order or phone-order convention as applied to the Internet by citing those as prior art, and making the argument that it's obvious to do the process with another communications medium. Can anyone think of some specific examples (I've had a long day) that we can write up and send in? I'd like to see how well the process works:-).
Odds are, the computer you are using right now contains hardware that was reverse-engineered... and there's not a thing that IBM can do about it, because Compaq (and later other companies) did it legally.
... and they could, 'cause IBM neglected to patent it. Most of the parts for IBM PC's were already available, or contracted with non-exclusive contracts. The BIOS was copyrighted, so it could be legally reverse-engineered (the right to do so for software depends partly on the precedent of the suit IBM filed against Pheonix and Compaq), and IBM imagined the design of the PC was too complex to mimic economically. Big mistake:-). If they'd patented the device, they might still be in charge, and we'd by typing on Heathkits or Apples.
He indicated it was pretty low, and it's like asking a computer maker "how much profit do you make on this sale?". Fair question, but if he tells you he's given up his negotiating advantage for that next contract:-).
IIRC, Lars has a contract with his label. This probably excludes other distribution deals, so he probably can't hire these people until his contract expires. He's already said he'll probably or certainly be cutting out either the label or the retailer or both when the contract is up.
Unfortunately, they have a point -- you can't read all of a DVD without unlocking the drive. DeCSS does that, but according to the the defense breif, so do DVD players.
So anyone who can play a DVD doesn't need DeCSS to copy it:-). It's like trying to ban footballs because they can be kicked through windows.
In this sense, software is more like an invention to be pantented than a document to be copyrighted. If you invent a formula that tastes just like coke, or write a program that decodes DVD's, and do so using honest reverse-engineering methods, then you should be free and clear to do what you like.
BZZZT!
You've described a copyright, not a patent. If a process or device is patented, the patent owner owns it, even if you built it on your own from spare parts found in your back yard, with no reference to their designs. Period.
Copyright on the other hand covers only the right to copy or create derivative works, so cleanroom techniques work around it. If you put a thousand monkeys in a room with typewriters, and they pound out the script to "Battlefield Earth" without having seen it before, it's yours! All you have to do is convince the judge that it's a coincidence.
(Ok, I admit, it's unlikely it will be an exact copy. The monkeys would probably improve it.)
Downloading and installing stuff is fine, but part of the reason you choose a distro with a package manager (like RPM or apt) is to have dependancies taken care of. If you install a new version of ssl or gnome or some core package by hand, you've broken your dependancy tree and it's a mess trying to get back on the rails. Especially if you didn't pick the same directories as the package maintainer for your installation.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not true.
Yes, it is. Open Source means I can copy any or all of the source code for use in my derivitave work -- so I copy all of it and compile the program as "mine" and it's mine. It's still open source, but I have a right to use it 'cause it's my open-source program, based on yours. Since I have your source, I can reverse-engineer or remove any reliance on external services, cryptograhpic license codes or hardware copy protection schemes -- and it's legal 'cause it's my software, based on yours.
You may object that your license can control my right to use, but that means you're not using an open-source license, so the argument collapses.
The point is that offering Open Source software requires a company to find a different revenue stream than selling the software. The software must become an enabler for some other unique offering of product or service, that's based on tangible objects or labor. It's entirely possible to charge on the basis of labor for the software, you just have to collect up front or as-you-go, and be willing to forgo profits where others choose to supply the labor rather than purchase it from you.
Nope, sorry, it's just special effects.
Sorry, I have problems with your use of "narrative" and "completed" in connection with this motion picture. I would have said "cacophony" and "assembled". Otherwise, you nailed it.
However, downloading data into Word and producing the web page is kosher, as is publishing static reports prepared by a single user (or, by extension, by a batch process).
We do this with other States (I work for North Carolina) on a share-by-request basis. We get the benefits of other States' and public instituitons' contributions to the project, and they get a leg up on the project by borrowing our code. If this software is something that could be widely used in your industry, open source could be a way to get free developer time on the project, in return for the donation of a part-time project manager. Chances are you have a person assigned to the project anyways, so you're getting a lot for a little, provided everyone plays fair.
No, but it's worth it to author one.
All my programmers are more productive on an OS that doesn't crash every time they make a mistake.
Using open libraries, I can pick up that geek market, which has extra cash and enough ethics to maybe not share my game with the neighborhood (since a bunch of them program for a living).
I can isolate OS bugs from game bugs -- less test time!
People who play my games don't like smacking into the blue screen, and I can't control the factors that cause it.
Hey, look! I got free hype!
Redhat 6.2 took care of most of it for me, except installing the 3dfx driver rpm. And that was just a download and a couple of rpm runs.
Try it some time -- after a couple of seasons you'll be ready to charge too (or at least you'll be losing money).
You can write and perform your own music too...
Today I wrenched my back while placing my CSS protected DVD of Apocalypse Now in my DVD player. While I do not suggest the plaintiffs were responsible for this deplorable incedent, had the CSS protection been absent I could have played the DVD in my computer, which runs Linux and is at a height that does not require me to bend over. I recently posted an anti-MPAA post on Slashdot, and this deplorable incedent reinforces my claim that CSS is harmful and inflicts needless pain on programmers everywhere. (strange but true -- feel free to forward to the judge)
Standard was undercutting prices by accepting a loss in non-consolidated areas and offsetting that loss with unfairly high prices in areas that were entirely under SO control. MS does the same thing with software (IE was supported by OS and Office sales -- and do you remember the huge competetive upgrade discounts for Office?)
What's unfair about this is that SO didn't have anything the other companies had except (initially) capital and (subsequently) a chance to squeeze consumers. SO did try to raise prices too high, and people did turn to other sources. But no-one could build an effective electric car in that era, and if they had SO would have used their capital to interfere (buy and divest, start a competing line at a loss until the upstarts run out of capital, etc). MS has done this too. Who heard of IE before there was a browser market? Anyone remember Stac? There's a classic illegal act -- MS settles a suit for stealing Stac's code, then buys the company and fires everyone.
In the case of AT&T, it was necessary to permit a monopoly in the beginning, because you had to have a wire from every phone to the central office. Streets were literally being closed due to telephone and electric wiring. Later on someone figured out a way to multiplex and switch signals, so that the same wire could server a bunch of signals bound for different destinations. This made competition possible, but the existance of the monopoly stifled competition, innovation and customer service until it was clear that competition could exist, and the monopoly was broken up. You had to pay the phone company around $300 for an answering machine in 1970, because you weren't allowed to hook up just any machine to your phone line. The cost for technology was almost exactly the same in 1980, when they were $30. Why didn't Ma Bell offer $30 answering machines? They were the phone company. They didn't have to. Why doesn't Office conform to the RTF standard? They're Microsoft. They don't have to.
If companies compete on the merits of their products and one loses, that's OK. But the anti-trust laws are there so that one company can't just run over competitors that have better products and ideas.
Um... no. You cannot clean room a patent. If your code does what their code does (performs the algorithm even if it doesn't look the same) you're cooked. To get around a patent, you must find an algorithm that is substantially different (an improvement) from the patented one. In terms of compression and encoding to a standard format this is essentially impossible, as a sufficiently different algorithm would very, very likely produce a different output.
Of course, if you succeed, you can patent yours...
Hmm... I've been at work too long :-)
Before we put him against the wall (not that we shouldn't, but before) let's remember that he didn't create the system, and he doesn't have a whole lot of leeway in how it works. Patent law is pretty patchy. I think it's mostly OK, except for a few of the provisions for what's patentable.
But the law allows patent claims that are exceedingly convoluted and arcane. The main reason it's "of the lawyers"... etc. is that a lot of legal jargon is used to make the claim incomprehensible. Remember when they posted Transmeta's claims? You can't do your own patent search, 'cause you could be staring right at a conflicting claim and not recognize it. Sometimes I wonder if they're just trying to confuse the PTO into giving up and issuing the patent.
I think part of patent reform will have to be fully-defined, simplified language, as well as an industry review for obviousness. In the meantime, the advice he gave you is about as far as he can go in print. Otherwise you might write an RSA implementation and point to his advice, as a defense :-).
They're probably at least as good as telephone lines, and probably better, as a downed phone line doesn't derail a million dollars worth of rolling stock and kill a bunch of passengers ;-).
You remind me of Minerva ("Veto, baby") Mayflower from Hudson Hawk :-).
Oddly enough, I don't use the web to pirate MP3's. The stuff I buy on the web is not at my local store (nor, I imagine, is it trucked through India by itinerant peddlers). And I do use it to participate in discussions with people who just don't think things through (present company excepted, of course :).
Bandits steal copper from the poles in the middle of nowhere, so they have plenty of time to run away. The rails are patrolled regularly, and kiosks will be in businesses, railway stations or private homes, where they're much harder to steal.
And doctors are more expensive than you seem to think. I'd bet (some number much less than 10,000) doctors would probably cost more than using the Internet to get basic health and contraception information to all the "internet ladies" in India. In a country of more than a billion, 10,000 doctors would be a drop in the bucket... especially if they have to order supplies by mail :-).
CNN (the talking head, sorry no link) just told me it would be a Gecko-based browser, which leads me to believe that you won't be running XTerms on this pad. They're probably using a custom browser based application built on Gecko (that part of Mozilla works pretty well) with Linux as the stable operating system.
I think this goes to the heart of it, and where they were talking at cross purposes. Every time Tim talked about obviousness, Dickenson talked about prior art. I agree that the patent office should only consider published material as prior art, but obviousness is a much fuzzier thing, apparently.
I'd have thought you could show obviousness if someone tried to patent a standard mail-order or phone-order convention as applied to the Internet by citing those as prior art, and making the argument that it's obvious to do the process with another communications medium. Can anyone think of some specific examples (I've had a long day) that we can write up and send in? I'd like to see how well the process works :-).
No, TOR is and allways will be Tor Johnson from "Plan 9 From Outer Space" and other bad movie gems.
He indicated it was pretty low, and it's like asking a computer maker "how much profit do you make on this sale?". Fair question, but if he tells you he's given up his negotiating advantage for that next contract :-).
IIRC, Lars has a contract with his label. This probably excludes other distribution deals, so he probably can't hire these people until his contract expires. He's already said he'll probably or certainly be cutting out either the label or the retailer or both when the contract is up.
So anyone who can play a DVD doesn't need DeCSS to copy it :-). It's like trying to ban footballs because they can be kicked through windows.
BZZZT!
You've described a copyright, not a patent. If a process or device is patented, the patent owner owns it, even if you built it on your own from spare parts found in your back yard, with no reference to their designs. Period.
Copyright on the other hand covers only the right to copy or create derivative works, so cleanroom techniques work around it. If you put a thousand monkeys in a room with typewriters, and they pound out the script to "Battlefield Earth" without having seen it before, it's yours! All you have to do is convince the judge that it's a coincidence.
(Ok, I admit, it's unlikely it will be an exact copy. The monkeys would probably improve it.)
Downloading and installing stuff is fine, but part of the reason you choose a distro with a package manager (like RPM or apt) is to have dependancies taken care of. If you install a new version of ssl or gnome or some core package by hand, you've broken your dependancy tree and it's a mess trying to get back on the rails. Especially if you didn't pick the same directories as the package maintainer for your installation.