Yes, this is important because authors never made any money before copyright.
Well, that was exactly what happened. They made money not as authors, but by other means.
Most writers/musicians had patrons(Leonardo, Michelangelo, Haydn), were performers (Liszt, Chopin) or impresarios (Shakespeare, Moliere, Haendel).
Obviously, the Sixtine Chapel was rather hard to fake, but for musicians the standard copy protection method was: never let the scores out of your sight!
Flextronics also makes the famous XBox for Microsoft in their Guadalahara Mexico facility. I just listened to a special on NPR about globalization and NAFTA and an economist was saying that without NAFTA the XBox would cost $400.
A big part of the problem with how science is taught today is that it's represented as a set of facts and not a process undetaken by human beings who do things like attach clamps too tight or forget to take the lens cap off the camera. In other words, I believe that screwing up an experiment you did yourself is often way more educational than seeing one done perfectly.
Virtually every commercial UNIX development tool I've ever used in the has been a per-user license
That was precisely the point. In order to get traction, TT should try something different. Doing more of the same is not a good strategy in a saturated market.
Carpenters buy hammers at a fixed price. They don't send monthly royalty payments to the hammer manufacturers.
Hammers don't cost $2000. If they did, you'd be seeing a lot less carpenters.
Royalties based licensing is eminently rational for TT: encourages its use, experimentation, and has the added benefit of allowing TT to ride the coattails of an unexpected succes.
In terms of KDE, the license is the dual QPL/GPL. You're right, the GPL is completely inappropriate for a Free Software desktop. What were they thinking?
Leave sarcasm to the people than can do it. It only cheapens your argumentation.
What's confusing about it? I buy it once, and I can install it on any workstation I use.
It's confusing in an economic sense: you're going to buy QT licenses if
1) You are using a very small team of developers, or
2) You're pretty sure your product will be a smash hit.
The per-developer license, having no relationship with the value of the final product, introduces a lot of uncertainity in the economic calulation.
I think that's why there are so few takers despite the quality of the QT toolset.
A royalties-based license, instead, is very clear: you make money, then you pay us. You don't, you owe us nothing. This license encourages experimentation, and would help popularize QT.
Let's not delude ourselves: little by little, KDE is being marginalized, despite being by far the best desktop. IMHO, the QT license is the culprit.
the revolutionaries never make any money. they care too much about their ideas to be hardassed enough to profit. its always the people who come around later that just see a business opportunity.
No, if they refuse a 140 million offer they certainly don't.
Then again, as the kind of person who decides to watch physics demos on the Discovery Channel and PBS, I may not be the best qualified to comment on the experience of teaching "casual" students of physics.:-)
You raise an interesting point: what kind of students are we talking about? I was thinking in the "interested" students, as few as they are.
To interest "casual" students on a physics video you'd have to get naked chicks dropping the balls from the tower.
Yes, but instead of looking at it from a TrollTech point of view, look at it from a user point of view. Regardless of *why*, there are a number of developers supporting GTK+. It might be very difficult for TrollTech to make a profit doing th same thing (hell, it's hard for a company to compete with lots of free software), but that doesn't mean that users should then use TrollTech software.
I'm alway wondering why so many people cannot see this. TT, good guys as they seem to be, cannot escape from OSS rules: free (as in beer) good enough software will replace better (with a price tag) software.
Slashdot Mirror
USArmy attacking French in North Africa during the WWII?
Yeah, it really happened. Read you history.
Cheers,
Easy forking is not a bug, but a feature of OSS. Seriously.
Cheers,
So why would I ever create anything of value?
If you have to ask, it's very improbable you'll ever do.
Cheers,
One of the stupidest things I've ever read.
That should be your post. Is either:
1) You're trolling, or
2) You didn't understand a word of the guy's point.
Which one is?
Cheers,
Yes, this is important because authors never made any money before copyright.
Well, that was exactly what happened. They made money not as authors, but by other means.
Most writers/musicians had patrons(Leonardo, Michelangelo, Haydn), were performers (Liszt, Chopin) or impresarios (Shakespeare, Moliere, Haendel).
Obviously, the Sixtine Chapel was rather hard to fake, but for musicians the standard copy protection method was: never let the scores out of your sight!
Cheers,
Flextronics also makes the famous XBox for Microsoft in their Guadalahara Mexico facility. I just listened to a special on NPR about globalization and NAFTA and an economist was saying that without NAFTA the XBox would cost $400.
So what?
I fail to see a point here.
Chhers,
SCO may want to sue MS for infringing on its patented "Cock Pistol, Shoot Foot" algorithm.
Wonderful!
Cheers,
If I remember correctly
You don't.
Cheers,
A big part of the problem with how science is taught today is that it's represented as a set of facts and not a process undetaken by human beings who do things like attach clamps too tight or forget to take the lens cap off the camera. In other words, I believe that screwing up an experiment you did yourself is often way more educational than seeing one done perfectly.
I have to agree with that!
Virtually every commercial UNIX development tool I've ever used in the has been a per-user license
That was precisely the point. In order to get traction, TT should try something different.
Doing more of the same is not a good strategy in a saturated market.
Carpenters buy hammers at a fixed price. They don't send monthly royalty payments to the hammer manufacturers.
Hammers don't cost $2000. If they did, you'd be seeing a lot less carpenters.
Royalties based licensing is eminently rational for TT: encourages its use, experimentation, and has the added benefit of allowing TT to ride the coattails of an unexpected succes.
In terms of KDE, the license is the dual QPL/GPL. You're right, the GPL is completely inappropriate for a Free Software desktop. What were they thinking?
Leave sarcasm to the people than can do it. It only cheapens your argumentation.
Cheers,
What's confusing about it? I buy it once, and I can install it on any workstation I use.
It's confusing in an economic sense: you're going to buy QT licenses if
1) You are using a very small team of developers, or
2) You're pretty sure your product will be a smash hit.
The per-developer license, having no relationship with the value of the final product, introduces a lot of uncertainity in the economic calulation.
I think that's why there are so few takers despite the quality of the QT toolset.
A royalties-based license, instead, is very clear: you make money, then you pay us. You don't, you owe us nothing.
This license encourages experimentation, and would help popularize QT.
Let's not delude ourselves: little by little, KDE is being marginalized, despite being by far the best desktop.
IMHO, the QT license is the culprit.
Cheers,
the revolutionaries never make any money. they care too much about their ideas to be hardassed enough to profit. its always the people who come around later that just see a business opportunity.
No, if they refuse a 140 million offer they certainly don't.
Cheers,
Then again, as the kind of person who decides to watch physics demos on the Discovery Channel and PBS, I may not be the best qualified to comment on the experience of teaching "casual" students of physics. :-)
You raise an interesting point: what kind of students are we talking about?
I was thinking in the "interested" students, as few as they are.
To interest "casual" students on a physics video you'd have to get naked chicks dropping the balls from the tower.
Now, that's an idea.
Cheers,
I know that I saw videos in physics classes, but I couldn't tell you the subject of any of them.
Aren't you exaggerating a little bit?
Cheers,
Or does it mean that it was effective and that is somehow got etched into my subconscious?
You got it.
Cheers,
Why must all code become "GPL compatable"?
Because little by little, GPL code will push non-GPL out of the mainstream.
And I think it's great.
Cheers,
Well, how 'bout it -- Eclipse vs Netbeans?
Deathmatch!
Cheers,
Why Funny? This is clearly Insightful.
Cheers,
've seen lots of grumblings about this, but lets think for a moment. Why should they be obliged to supply a windows version.
We (the grumblers) aren't saying that they are obliged to do anything.
What we are saying is that is is in their own self-interest to do so.
I, for one, am an KDE user and TT admirer, but still I think they're in the road to irrelevancy owing to their license policy.
Cheers,
No. I mean, 'I watched some of the above movies but they didn't make me want to go and buy stuff.'
You're seriously underestimating the ad bastard's cunning.
Cheers,
Yes, but instead of looking at it from a TrollTech point of view, look at it from a user point of view. Regardless of *why*, there are a number of developers supporting GTK+. It might be very difficult for TrollTech to make a profit doing th same thing (hell, it's hard for a company to compete with lots of free software), but that doesn't mean that users should then use TrollTech software.
I'm alway wondering why so many people cannot see this.
TT, good guys as they seem to be, cannot escape from OSS rules: free (as in beer) good enough software will replace better (with a price tag) software.
Cheers,
The operative word being "still".
Cheers,
Truman Show, anyone?
Cheers,
In a rational world, this thread should finish here. You've summed it all perfectly.
Hats off to you!
Cheers,
I suppose you you think you have some kind of point, but is really trite.
Cheers,