Well, first off, this really isn't a problem seeing as how the superior (and open) GnuPG is available to all. (And yes, there are GUIs available.)
On the other hand, it's a scary look at how copyright with regards to software has apparently evolved into 'information control' instead of right to have a copy. How many proprietary software EULA's include a clause that XYZ company may terminate the license at any time? If I'm not mistaken, that means that someone like M$ or Adobe can walk into any office in the US that uses their software and shut them down at their own whim. And is there even a legal framework for forcing a refund? So lawyers or law experts, what you say about this?
If this is all true, you RMS bashing folks in the crowd ought to give the 'all proprietary is evil' ideology another mental run-around before something else like this comes around and bites you. How long before we need a "War on Proprietary Software"? (-:
His point is that the DRM people should stick to technology and leave the laws alone. He believes that without the laws to back them up, the market will do away with them for exactly the reasons you give.
I see your point, but as long as DMCA exists, there will still be no way to fight forced-proprietary technology in the US. At what point would the public complain about hastles induced by DRM and not just use whatever crap is shoved in their face.
I'd like to see the SSSCA stuff solved by market forces and sanity too. Let the Hollywood folks make themselves an antitamper PCI or USB2 hardware card that has only encrypted data in, a smartcard slot for per user rights management and an SVGA analogue overlay/analogue out. If the market is right they can sell/give away such hardware and make a profit on the films.
I can't believe I'm reading this bullcrap coming from AC himself. If I pay for digital content, I have every right to expect to have open access to the original digital stream for whatever the heck my Fair Use desires may be. (Hey, maybe I have a digital projector and want to run the signal through a de-interlacer, sharpen filter, or perhaps scale the output to a different resolution for doing multi-channel viewing). And it is NOT hollywood's right to dictate via DRM, hard-coded or otherwise, what I may do with the content I've legally gained access to, whether cable subscription or open air broadcast. So if I want to take the HDTV stream from my favorite TV show, edit out the commercials, scale it down to 160x120, encode it to DivX and play it on my iPaQ, I should have every right to do so. Same goes for any type of audio-only format. The beauty of open technology is flexibility. I can be creative with it and bend it to suit my needs.
What Cox is suggesting would be better than SSSCA-like government mandated PC hardware / software copy controls, but it is by no means good for the consumer and it is still by any means, an anti-innovative technology. Oh yeah.. and it wouldn't prevent 'piracy' either.
Part of the big advantage to Open Source consulting is that your clients are benefitting from those who have gone before you. Now it's their turn to pitch in. The other option is much more expensive for them: go proprietary and start over from scratch rather than standing upon the shoulders of giants, or so the saying goes. This example also illustrates one of the beauties of GPL over BSD--it forces cooperation so that clients can't own improvements to the codebase.
Of course I think the real answer to this is much simpler stated: provide solutions, not software! ex.) "I will take whatever steps necessary to set up your computers to perform x, y, and z to your specification for a total cost of $n." Then it's up to you how to meet those specifications, be it free or proprietary software.
the developer who's been working on the ActiveMovie and DirectShow code for the last nine months suddenly pulled it all from the source tree, citing fears of trouble under the DMCA.
I'm sick of hearing about spineless programmers suddenly and without explanation pulling their code from cvs trees, whining about dmca. First off, pulling code without prior discussion is a rash and irresponsible move. Secondly, we need people to take a strong stance against DMCA if we ever want to destroy it. At least half my co-workers would be willing to protest in Wash. DC if an open source programmer was ever convicted of a non-crime using dmca. I frankly wouldn't be too surprised if a 'million geek march' formed too..
Is it just my imagination or is queen Amidala dressed almost precisely like Britney Spears in that one scene? Tight vinyl pants and top, belly showing, etc. Except it's a white outfit instead of red.. How lame can you get? Lucas has definitely sold out to corporate America. Sad really..
It's good to see all the open source office suites making leaps and bounds forward these days, but my personal bet is on KOffice. Huh? Yeah, I said KOffice. Considering how fast KOffice is moving with so little help, it's pretty clear that the codebase is clean, efficient and managable. Just recently, KOffice 1.2 beta1 was announced, bringing forth a new fully wysiwyg layout engine. With this in place, there is very little holding the suite back from quickly dominating the scene. IMO this will be further proof of C++ being the superior language for GUI design. Time will tell.
Violent video games in no way constitute a violation of US obscenity laws, though some may be considered indecent. The government has no authority to regulate non-broadcast indecent materials. Game sales are not broadcast media. This bill is already dead. Don't worry folks, this is just for political show.
Here's the really stupid thing about all this: Although SCSI is hands down a technically superior interface it is not THE standard simply because some marketing bozos thought they should keep IDE along for the ride to better price differentiate the marketplace. I, for one, do not believe that SCSI electronics are much (if any) more expensive to produce than IDE--especially now that modern IDE RAID controllers are getting more sophisticated. There's nothing special about etching silicon for SCSI controllers vs. IDE, that should demand such a disgustingly huge price difference. In fact, the SCSI drives themselves ought to be less expensive than IDE since most of the interface logic is on the host adapter.
"Frying at high temperatures or for a long time should be avoided," Busk said, adding: "Our advice to eat less fat-rich products such as french fries and crisps, remains valid."
Since there are so many variables and so many unknowns, the best diet is a diverse diet. That's about the best anyone can try for. Everything in moderation. Nearly every chemical known to man is carcinogenic in sufficient concentration.
Maybe this is because the Linux kernel device driver framework is so poorly done and un-standardized than you NEED the driver source code to do anything.
Maybe you don't have a clue what you're talking about and have never even looked at the kernel source. Some drivers are better written than others, but the framework is remarkably solid.
What about drivers for Windows? I have seen very few drivers for Windows that WEREN'T closed-source...
What does this have to do with Windows? I don't use Windows. NVidia's binary drivers are a pain because they have to try to keep up with every change made to X and the linux kernel. Frankly, I don't know why they'd want to do it themselves and not just give out the docs so the community can develop them.
Oh, and by the way, the open drivers for ATI cards work beautifully. Dunno about Windows, but who cares. Windows sucks anyhow.
So big bad Intel is going to face even more competition. Boo Hoo. Competition is good. My only concern in all this is that AMD being in bed with M$ will mean they won't be as inclined to say.. help tweak gcc for their new architecture. Intel would be smart to fully embrace the Open Source community at this time.
Intel ought to stick with what they do best: designing fast microprocessors. If they could give the gcc folks some tips on improving performance, I think that'd go a lot further for their bottom line then wasting time writing proprietary compilers that only a few companies will use. Do they quite realize the market advantage of having the Open Source community on their side? Heck, I'd quit using AMD processors tomorrow if Intel could squeeze significantly more performance out of their chips in gcc. AMD take note: you guys could be the first to jump on this as well.
Frankly, I couldn't care less if nvidia's drivers are open sourced. After spending months trying to play Quake II on a Voodoo5 5500, I bought a GeForceII MX 400. I was playing within 5 minutes of installing the card.
If you're a gamer junkie, then fine. For those of us whose computers are more than just toys, NVidia's unstable closed drivers are not even a consideration. And maybe you'll reconsider as well someday when X crashes while running a GL accelerated app. Closed source drivers are 100% illogical and unacceptable under any circumstance. That's all there is to it.
Although none the ideas are original, I'd say this article does a near perfect job of summarizing and referencing just about every possible angle from which to encourage people to switch from proprietary to Open Source / Free software. It also does a great job of debunking a lot of the stupid FUD that even many clueless slashdotters have been spreading recently. See section: "Unnecessary Fears" Nice to see that some people still think for themselves.
And best of all, the author is not even hesitant at recognizing that, in all reality, proprietary software very well may be going extinct, BUT that it doesn't mean the software industry is going to die with it.
Any of you tech industry folks, listen up: your bosses need to read this article ASAP.
So with GPL, if Bill wants his own way, Bill has to write his own code. Waah. And if he uses the public roads, he has to obey the rules of the road. Double Waah. An unauthorized toll booth on a public road...is called theft.
Very well put. GPL prevents free-riding and profiteering off other people's hard work. I think that's especially important if public funds were used. Now the BSD fans will argue that the original code is still free. Perhaps, but as long as we have big powerful software companies, they will continue to look for opportunities to take free but unprotected code, make proprietary changes, and then push it as the new 'standard.' Then we're back where we started.
Here's another example: Suppose my software business does not rely on selling licenses to be profitable. Instead, I provide development and support expertise simply at a cost for my labor. Now, if I licensed the software developed for clients as BSD, competitors could take my code, modify it slightly, and sell licenses instead. In a sense, they'd be turning my own hard work against me! And suppose this competitor happens to have millions of dollars to squander on marketing what is 99% my own efforts. Before long, I'm out of the market because, running a small shop, I can't compete with a gigantic company that devotes all its resources to marketing glitz, high-pressure sales, legal wrangling, etc--especially when their proprietary modifications to my code become "standardized" among their own clients. Worse yet, they may claim a patent on one of the added proprietary features and then turn around a sue me if I implement it in the original open codebase.
Folks, GPL is for our own protection from those who lust after money and control. If you believe in open technology and open standards, please take to heart that GPL is the only reliable way to secure these.
Saying GPL is less free because it forbids proprietary derivatives is like saying the United States is less free because it forbids slavery.
This probably means you, RedHat. Go set our Mexican friends up with Free Software before M$ further ruins their economy to deepen their own pocketbook. This is really disgusting how M$ is seeking to stay afloat by going for big sleazy licensing deals at taxpayers expense both here and abroad.
1.) I'm going to look for an Open Source package that meets my need first. 2.) I'm going to consider writing my own software or extending an existing OSS package before buying a proprietary software license. 3.) Registration is bad. Your company has no need for my personal information or e-mail unless I specifically require services that could benefit from this--like perhaps tech support after a customer decides to buy. 4.) I'm not even going to consider your product if your company does not support the free operating systems I use. 5.) I'm not even going to consider your product if your company is run by greedy bastards who treat customers like criminals or never give back to any open source projects they may employ. 6.) Even if you stay proprietary, source code would be nice because I inherently don't trust the security of binaries on my networks. Disassembly is a much harder method of security auditing if the need presents itself or clients require.
Determining what someone deserves is equally troubling. In either case, you have to presume that you know what's right for another person. At the very least, this makes you no better than them. At the very worst, it make you totalitarian. At the core of communist ideology, we find "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and we know what a morass they got into determining what other people needed. The people who made such decisions ended up living much better than everybody else. In other words... let he who is without greed cast the first stone.
The beauty of a pure free market is that it regulates itself such that nobody runs away with the whole pie. Unfortunately, we don't live in a pure free market. Intellectual property is not a market force--it's a social compromise intended to increase the well-being of the public overall. Used reasonably, it is beneficial. Used without restraint, the owners of the most influential intellectual property can become, essentially, totalitarian rulers of their respective industry. GPL is a tool to create pure free markets in the software industry. Because nobody can fully control any piece of code and the only way to make money is to sell services and labor rather than licenses, you eliminate all non-market forces and are left with a pure labor market where developers are paid to write software, end of story.
Well you say, then perhaps you and some of your cube mates could sell directly to consumers. Great. Pitch that idea to your cube-mates, scrape some money together, rent your own office... oh... see what happens? You end up becoming a suit yourself.
I understand your point, but you're making the assumption that to compete one must form what is traditionally thought of as a "software company" where workers come in, put in their 8 hours, and develop a product for sale. That's one option, but it's a much harder one and requires a lot more overhead. I would argue that the key to a successful career writing GPL'ed software is to become a consultant/developer. People have needs, you contract your labor to meet them for less than they'd pay for an equivalent proprietary solution. The contractors who do the best job for the best price become popular and make the most money. At some point in the growth of ones business, it might make sense to rent an office and hire a broader range of employees--but only if you can put to use economies of scale to provide a better service than freelancers. But one of the great things about not being the sole provider of a licensed software is you don't have provide technical support for thousands or millions of customers--only those whom you contract with, most likely locally. And if a customer gets screwed, they can go right to a competitor. Many buyers, many sellers, zero barrier to entry--how much more All-American freedom and capitalism can you get?
True, congress did not acknowledge it as a right, but they also failed to acknowledge the rights of Negroes. I believe we have evolved towards a society where some control over one's IP is a fundamental right, just as we evolved towards a society where control of one's time is a fundamental right.
I suppose you're right that this is a difficult ideological conflict to resolve. In comparing IP to fundamental human rights like freedom from slavery, I would argue that IP is merely an economic construct--a society could do fine without it, though perhaps better with. Perhaps a more fundamental right would be simply the ability to claim work as your own--in the same sense as academic integrity. But alas there's little point in arguing because IP isn't going away anytime soon although some reform is probably in order.
OTOH, a failure to recognize IP as a right could lead to total control over my IP by those who believe that such actions are in the public interest. That's part of the reason why I argue that IP should be formulated as regular P for tax purposes.
That's an interesting point now that I see where you're going with the tax bit, though I'd have to ponder it for awhile. I guess the only two remaining points would be: 1.) Assuming I want my work to act in the public interest, GPL seems an ideal way to accomplish this by ensuring complete lack of control by anyone. Sure, public domain does the same thing for the original code, but then I risk somebody commercializing a project that I don't want to be commercialized--in a sense, free-riding off the hard work that I wanted to be a gift. 2.) Given an IP tax rate, free software ought pay no taxes, right? If not, you'd have a situation like in Great Britain where you have to have pay an entertainment tax even to put on a free concert.
Anyhow, this has been an interesting discussion. I always like to let my ideas scrape against others to be broken, reshaped, or sharpened. Then again, this is probably long enough and this shall be my last reply. Feel free to reply to this though if you like--I shall still read it. Take care and may the strongest market force win. (-;
Some really definitive industry standards for 3D graphics hardware and software. Standards that are not controlled by any one company and that are not bogged down with patents and cross-licensing. I nominate OpenGL 2.0 (-:
I don't want a single authentication for all my online transactions! That's really all this is about--trying to make it easier for people who don't want to remember a different login for every site. Well, guess what? Centralized authentication is massively insecure and prone to abuse.
Here's a better idea: Implement a standard for all web browsers to *locally* (or using a smart card) store authentication data for all sites a user has a seperate login for. Then, all the user needs to remember is a single passphrase to decrypt the database of authentication data. Yes, I know--mozilla already has this functionality. So lets make it an industry standard and as user-friendly as possible. And while we're at it, lets get people to start using encrypted e-mail / instant messaging / etc. as well! THAT would be a worthy government effort.
At least one company [transgaming.com] has already stated that they will not be able to work with the LPGL wine (citing among other things, possible DMCA violations) and will be actively helping Rewind (with cash and code it seems)
First of all, the DMCA is an unconstitutional law and it needs to be fought tooth and nail until it is defeated. Transgaming should not be required to implement copy controls for their emulator to be both useful and legal.
Second, this is more about Transgaming's business model than anything else. It's incompatible with LGPL because they require the ability to sell "value-added" proprietary versions of Wine. Since they don't own Wine, they are unable to dual-license it--such as making the old free and the new proprietary. Now, if we can trust them to release improvements back to the BSD codebase, this is fine. I, for one, would be more inclined to support them if they stuck with LGPL and just let subscribers control by vote the direction of development (ie. which games to support). Here's another idea: Proprietary game developers themselves! If game companies could pay Transgaming to support their latest and greatest games in Linux, don't you think their sales would rise? It would be sort of like Loki, except ensuring emulator support would be alot easier than porting. Then game companies could put stickers on their games that say "Works with Linux via Wine!" Or they could even include a Wine install kit (unsupported of course).
Neato.. but..
on
WineX 2.0
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
What Transgaming is doing is pretty cool as an interim solution for gamers. On the other hand, I hope to see more Free Software community-developed games in the future. There certainly is an incentive to create free games: they're fun to write and fun to play! One of these days I trust there'll be a really killer Open Source multiplayer game that everyone will enjoy and at no cost. Various libraries like SDL and CrystalSpace are making headway. It's going to be exciting as they mature.
I agree that greed is immoral, but I disagree that proprietary software promotes greed.
Hmm.. the definition I typically hold for 'greed' is "the excessive desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves." (WordNet) But of course that's relative to an extent. The reason I would say most proprietary software tends to promote greed is that more than often, the folks that own proprietary software companies are not just looking to do a good job and live comfortably--they're in it to get rich and be the next Big Thing. And many times, those people are not the ones even writing the code. It's often a similar situation to the music industry--you have these middle-men between the artists and consumers that are getting the biggest piece of the pie. With proprietary software, you also have a lot of wheel-reinventing which is not at all beneficial to the economy.
I believe that the only rational way to deal with intellectual property is to treat it in much the same way we treat physical property.
I don't agree on this basic assertion. There is no inherent moral / human right to claim information as property as you would a physical object. IP law is a compromise and a sort of 'virtual' right, which is why the US Constitution does not even require the recognition of it. ie.) Congress has a duty to promote peace and provide national defense, but only the (optional) right to create temporary protection for inventions and 'useful arts.' In a sense, copyright is more socialist than it is capitalist.
Now, some people in the Free Software movement have concluded that treating IP as normal P would result in nothing ever reaching the public domain. This is demonstrably false, since my regular P is routinely taxed. The expiration of copyright, and the limited scope of copyright is the equivalent of a tax on IP. So, the existance of proprietary software is nothing more than a practical social contract designed to strike a balance between users and creators.
The modern state of copyright does in fact prevent anything useful from reaching the public domain--especially with terms being extended every time Mickey Mouse is about to go PD. Will software written today have any value 95+ years from now? No. Absolutely none. That bit about "taxing" is plainly ridiculous because it implies true ownership. "Intellectual property" is a priveledge, NOT a right. On the other hand, the ownership of physical property IS a basic right in all free societies.
OTOH, when I see people gloating over how they are going to make MSFT irrelevant, how "all software should be free", how governments should be required to use it, plainly there is an anti-capitalist zeal associated with this. There is plainly a "vision" held by many people in the Free Software movement, and the GPL is their tool to implement that vision, and that vision is decidedly *not* capitalist.
I'm sorry, but you're way off here. I would consider myself one of the so-called 'zealots' that you refer to. However, my vision is not some imaginary socialist utopia where everybody blindly works for the good of all and is magically rewarded. GPL is a tool to ensure that control of the technology we embrace remains in our hands rather than being controlled primarily by business interests. Retaining control allows us (developers) to operate in a market with few barriers--a purely capitalist market.
The achievement of a monopoly by a GPL'd piece of software would effectively force you to work under the GPL. Linux may become the first test case for this. The harm to consumers could be incalculable, as development of alternatives could be stifled for decades. OK, lets assume that happens--for example, the Open Source community comes up with a beautifully written office suite that effectively drives all proprietary ones out of the market. How is this bad? All it means is the wheel will never again need re-invented and perhaps finally a true industry standard will emerge. There's still plenty of room for innovation--new features to the existing codebase.. contributed by anyone who pleases. Where is this scenario bad? It's sure as heck a more optimal outcome for thepublic interest. And if you've really got that great of an idea on how to re-think the whole concept of an "office suite" then sure, it's your right to go proprietary.
It is also possible that the proprietary software could be outlawed and that is why RMS's accusation that it's immoral is such a sore spot. Why? Because all law has a moral foundation
As stated earlier, I would not take it to that extreme--outlawing proprietary. But on the other hand, if Open Source wins by nature and market forces, then so be it.
We will probably be dead by the time copylefted software starts to cause social problems. I am writing these things in the hopes that our great grand children might dig these words out of an archive some day, and that true liberators of the future will be able to point back to a prophet who foresaw their fate, who will encourage them to fight for what is right. My far greater hope is that they will never need it.
Nothing you have said thus far suggests any way in which copylefted software could cause social problems, but if you can provide a solid example, I'm all ears. Decreasing the size of the software industry due to increased efficiency of open development does not count, however, because this type of change is seen throughout all history and in all industries and is not a social problem. (compare: robotics replacing factory workers, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, first off, this really isn't a problem seeing as how the superior (and open) GnuPG is available to all. (And yes, there are GUIs available.)
On the other hand, it's a scary look at how copyright with regards to software has apparently evolved into 'information control' instead of right to have a copy. How many proprietary software EULA's include a clause that XYZ company may terminate the license at any time? If I'm not mistaken, that means that someone like M$ or Adobe can walk into any office in the US that uses their software and shut them down at their own whim. And is there even a legal framework for forcing a refund? So lawyers or law experts, what you say about this?
If this is all true, you RMS bashing folks in the crowd ought to give the 'all proprietary is evil' ideology another mental run-around before something else like this comes around and bites you. How long before we need a "War on Proprietary Software"? (-:
His point is that the DRM people should stick to technology and leave the laws alone. He believes that without the laws to back them up, the market will do away with them for exactly the reasons you give.
I see your point, but as long as DMCA exists, there will still be no way to fight forced-proprietary technology in the US. At what point would the public complain about hastles induced by DRM and not just use whatever crap is shoved in their face.
I'd like to see the SSSCA stuff solved by market forces and sanity too. Let the Hollywood folks make themselves an antitamper PCI or USB2 hardware card that has only encrypted data in, a smartcard slot for per user rights management and an SVGA analogue overlay/analogue out. If the market is right they can sell/give away such hardware and make a profit on the films.
I can't believe I'm reading this bullcrap coming from AC himself. If I pay for digital content, I have every right to expect to have open access to the original digital stream for whatever the heck my Fair Use desires may be. (Hey, maybe I have a digital projector and want to run the signal through a de-interlacer, sharpen filter, or perhaps scale the output to a different resolution for doing multi-channel viewing). And it is NOT hollywood's right to dictate via DRM, hard-coded or otherwise, what I may do with the content I've legally gained access to, whether cable subscription or open air broadcast. So if I want to take the HDTV stream from my favorite TV show, edit out the commercials, scale it down to 160x120, encode it to DivX and play it on my iPaQ, I should have every right to do so. Same goes for any type of audio-only format. The beauty of open technology is flexibility. I can be creative with it and bend it to suit my needs.
What Cox is suggesting would be better than SSSCA-like government mandated PC hardware / software copy controls, but it is by no means good for the consumer and it is still by any means, an anti-innovative technology. Oh yeah.. and it wouldn't prevent 'piracy' either.
Part of the big advantage to Open Source consulting is that your clients are benefitting from those who have gone before you. Now it's their turn to pitch in. The other option is much more expensive for them: go proprietary and start over from scratch rather than standing upon the shoulders of giants, or so the saying goes. This example also illustrates one of the beauties of GPL over BSD--it forces cooperation so that clients can't own improvements to the codebase.
Of course I think the real answer to this is much simpler stated: provide solutions, not software! ex.) "I will take whatever steps necessary to set up your computers to perform x, y, and z to your specification for a total cost of $n." Then it's up to you how to meet those specifications, be it free or proprietary software.
the developer who's been working on the ActiveMovie and DirectShow code for the last nine months suddenly pulled it all from the source tree, citing fears of trouble under the DMCA.
I'm sick of hearing about spineless programmers suddenly and without explanation pulling their code from cvs trees, whining about dmca. First off, pulling code without prior discussion is a rash and irresponsible move. Secondly, we need people to take a strong stance against DMCA if we ever want to destroy it. At least half my co-workers would be willing to protest in Wash. DC if an open source programmer was ever convicted of a non-crime using dmca. I frankly wouldn't be too surprised if a 'million geek march' formed too..
Is it just my imagination or is queen Amidala dressed almost precisely like Britney Spears in that one scene? Tight vinyl pants and top, belly showing, etc. Except it's a white outfit instead of red.. How lame can you get? Lucas has definitely sold out to corporate America. Sad really..
It's good to see all the open source office suites making leaps and bounds forward these days, but my personal bet is on KOffice. Huh? Yeah, I said KOffice. Considering how fast KOffice is moving with so little help, it's pretty clear that the codebase is clean, efficient and managable. Just recently, KOffice 1.2 beta1 was announced, bringing forth a new fully wysiwyg layout engine. With this in place, there is very little holding the suite back from quickly dominating the scene. IMO this will be further proof of C++ being the superior language for GUI design. Time will tell.
Violent video games in no way constitute a violation of US obscenity laws, though some may be considered indecent. The government has no authority to regulate non-broadcast indecent materials. Game sales are not broadcast media. This bill is already dead. Don't worry folks, this is just for political show.
Here's the really stupid thing about all this: Although SCSI is hands down a technically superior interface it is not THE standard simply because some marketing bozos thought they should keep IDE along for the ride to better price differentiate the marketplace. I, for one, do not believe that SCSI electronics are much (if any) more expensive to produce than IDE--especially now that modern IDE RAID controllers are getting more sophisticated. There's nothing special about etching silicon for SCSI controllers vs. IDE, that should demand such a disgustingly huge price difference. In fact, the SCSI drives themselves ought to be less expensive than IDE since most of the interface logic is on the host adapter.
If only engineers ruled this world. (-;
"Frying at high temperatures or for a long time should be avoided," Busk said, adding: "Our advice to eat less fat-rich products such as french fries and crisps, remains valid."
Since there are so many variables and so many unknowns, the best diet is a diverse diet. That's about the best anyone can try for. Everything in moderation. Nearly every chemical known to man is carcinogenic in sufficient concentration.
Maybe this is because the Linux kernel device driver framework is so poorly done and un-standardized than you NEED the driver source code to do anything.
Maybe you don't have a clue what you're talking about and have never even looked at the kernel source. Some drivers are better written than others, but the framework is remarkably solid.
What about drivers for Windows? I have seen very few drivers for Windows that WEREN'T closed-source...
What does this have to do with Windows? I don't use Windows. NVidia's binary drivers are a pain because they have to try to keep up with every change made to X and the linux kernel. Frankly, I don't know why they'd want to do it themselves and not just give out the docs so the community can develop them.
Oh, and by the way, the open drivers for ATI cards work beautifully. Dunno about Windows, but who cares. Windows sucks anyhow.
So big bad Intel is going to face even more competition. Boo Hoo. Competition is good. My only concern in all this is that AMD being in bed with M$ will mean they won't be as inclined to say.. help tweak gcc for their new architecture. Intel would be smart to fully embrace the Open Source community at this time.
Intel ought to stick with what they do best: designing fast microprocessors. If they could give the gcc folks some tips on improving performance, I think that'd go a lot further for their bottom line then wasting time writing proprietary compilers that only a few companies will use. Do they quite realize the market advantage of having the Open Source community on their side? Heck, I'd quit using AMD processors tomorrow if Intel could squeeze significantly more performance out of their chips in gcc. AMD take note: you guys could be the first to jump on this as well.
Frankly, I couldn't care less if nvidia's drivers are open sourced. After spending months trying to play Quake II on a Voodoo5 5500, I bought a GeForceII MX 400. I was playing within 5 minutes of installing the card.
If you're a gamer junkie, then fine. For those of us whose computers are more than just toys, NVidia's unstable closed drivers are not even a consideration. And maybe you'll reconsider as well someday when X crashes while running a GL accelerated app. Closed source drivers are 100% illogical and unacceptable under any circumstance. That's all there is to it.
Although none the ideas are original, I'd say this article does a near perfect job of summarizing and referencing just about every possible angle from which to encourage people to switch from proprietary to Open Source / Free software. It also does a great job of debunking a lot of the stupid FUD that even many clueless slashdotters have been spreading recently. See section: "Unnecessary Fears" Nice to see that some people still think for themselves.
And best of all, the author is not even hesitant at recognizing that, in all reality, proprietary software very well may be going extinct, BUT that it doesn't mean the software industry is going to die with it.
Any of you tech industry folks, listen up: your bosses need to read this article ASAP.
So with GPL, if Bill wants his own way, Bill has to write his own code. Waah. And if he uses the public roads, he has to obey the rules of the road. Double Waah. An unauthorized toll booth on a public road...is called theft.
Very well put. GPL prevents free-riding and profiteering off other people's hard work. I think that's especially important if public funds were used. Now the BSD fans will argue that the original code is still free. Perhaps, but as long as we have big powerful software companies, they will continue to look for opportunities to take free but unprotected code, make proprietary changes, and then push it as the new 'standard.' Then we're back where we started.
Here's another example: Suppose my software business does not rely on selling licenses to be profitable. Instead, I provide development and support expertise simply at a cost for my labor. Now, if I licensed the software developed for clients as BSD, competitors could take my code, modify it slightly, and sell licenses instead. In a sense, they'd be turning my own hard work against me! And suppose this competitor happens to have millions of dollars to squander on marketing what is 99% my own efforts. Before long, I'm out of the market because, running a small shop, I can't compete with a gigantic company that devotes all its resources to marketing glitz, high-pressure sales, legal wrangling, etc--especially when their proprietary modifications to my code become "standardized" among their own clients. Worse yet, they may claim a patent on one of the added proprietary features and then turn around a sue me if I implement it in the original open codebase.
Folks, GPL is for our own protection from those who lust after money and control. If you believe in open technology and open standards, please take to heart that GPL is the only reliable way to secure these.
Saying GPL is less free because it forbids proprietary derivatives is like saying the United States is less free because it forbids slavery.
This probably means you, RedHat. Go set our Mexican friends up with Free Software before M$ further ruins their economy to deepen their own pocketbook. This is really disgusting how M$ is seeking to stay afloat by going for big sleazy licensing deals at taxpayers expense both here and abroad.
Well, lets see..
1.) I'm going to look for an Open Source package that meets my need first.
2.) I'm going to consider writing my own software or extending an existing OSS package before buying a proprietary software license.
3.) Registration is bad. Your company has no need for my personal information or e-mail unless I specifically require services that could benefit from this--like perhaps tech support after a customer decides to buy.
4.) I'm not even going to consider your product if your company does not support the free operating systems I use.
5.) I'm not even going to consider your product if your company is run by greedy bastards who treat customers like criminals or never give back to any open source projects they may employ.
6.) Even if you stay proprietary, source code would be nice because I inherently don't trust the security of binaries on my networks. Disassembly is a much harder method of security auditing if the need presents itself or clients require.
Determining what someone deserves is equally troubling. In either case, you have to presume that you know what's right for another person. At the very least, this makes you no better than them. At the very worst, it make you totalitarian. At the core of communist ideology, we find "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and we know what a morass they got into determining what other people needed. The people who made such decisions ended up living much better than everybody else. In other words... let he who is without greed cast the first stone.
The beauty of a pure free market is that it regulates itself such that nobody runs away with the whole pie. Unfortunately, we don't live in a pure free market. Intellectual property is not a market force--it's a social compromise intended to increase the well-being of the public overall. Used reasonably, it is beneficial. Used without restraint, the owners of the most influential intellectual property can become, essentially, totalitarian rulers of their respective industry. GPL is a tool to create pure free markets in the software industry. Because nobody can fully control any piece of code and the only way to make money is to sell services and labor rather than licenses, you eliminate all non-market forces and are left with a pure labor market where developers are paid to write software, end of story.
Well you say, then perhaps you and some of your cube mates could sell directly to consumers. Great. Pitch that idea to your cube-mates, scrape some money together, rent your own office... oh... see what happens? You end up becoming a suit yourself.
I understand your point, but you're making the assumption that to compete one must form what is traditionally thought of as a "software company" where workers come in, put in their 8 hours, and develop a product for sale. That's one option, but it's a much harder one and requires a lot more overhead. I would argue that the key to a successful career writing GPL'ed software is to become a consultant/developer. People have needs, you contract your labor to meet them for less than they'd pay for an equivalent proprietary solution. The contractors who do the best job for the best price become popular and make the most money. At some point in the growth of ones business, it might make sense to rent an office and hire a broader range of employees--but only if you can put to use economies of scale to provide a better service than freelancers. But one of the great things about not being the sole provider of a licensed software is you don't have provide technical support for thousands or millions of customers--only those whom you contract with, most likely locally. And if a customer gets screwed, they can go right to a competitor. Many buyers, many sellers, zero barrier to entry--how much more All-American freedom and capitalism can you get?
True, congress did not acknowledge it as a right, but they also failed to acknowledge the rights of Negroes. I believe we have evolved towards a society where some control over one's IP is a fundamental right, just as we evolved towards a society where control of one's time is a fundamental right.
I suppose you're right that this is a difficult ideological conflict to resolve. In comparing IP to fundamental human rights like freedom from slavery, I would argue that IP is merely an economic construct--a society could do fine without it, though perhaps better with. Perhaps a more fundamental right would be simply the ability to claim work as your own--in the same sense as academic integrity. But alas there's little point in arguing because IP isn't going away anytime soon although some reform is probably in order.
OTOH, a failure to recognize IP as a right could lead to total control over my IP by those who believe that such actions are in the public interest. That's part of the reason why I argue that IP should be formulated as regular P for tax purposes.
That's an interesting point now that I see where you're going with the tax bit, though I'd have to ponder it for awhile. I guess the only two remaining points would be: 1.) Assuming I want my work to act in the public interest, GPL seems an ideal way to accomplish this by ensuring complete lack of control by anyone. Sure, public domain does the same thing for the original code, but then I risk somebody commercializing a project that I don't want to be commercialized--in a sense, free-riding off the hard work that I wanted to be a gift. 2.) Given an IP tax rate, free software ought pay no taxes, right? If not, you'd have a situation like in Great Britain where you have to have pay an entertainment tax even to put on a free concert.
Anyhow, this has been an interesting discussion. I always like to let my ideas scrape against others to be broken, reshaped, or sharpened. Then again, this is probably long enough and this shall be my last reply. Feel free to reply to this though if you like--I shall still read it. Take care and may the strongest market force win. (-;
Some really definitive industry standards for 3D graphics hardware and software. Standards that are not controlled by any one company and that are not bogged down with patents and cross-licensing. I nominate OpenGL 2.0 (-:
I don't want a single authentication for all my online transactions! That's really all this is about--trying to make it easier for people who don't want to remember a different login for every site. Well, guess what? Centralized authentication is massively insecure and prone to abuse.
Here's a better idea: Implement a standard for all web browsers to *locally* (or using a smart card) store authentication data for all sites a user has a seperate login for. Then, all the user needs to remember is a single passphrase to decrypt the database of authentication data. Yes, I know--mozilla already has this functionality. So lets make it an industry standard and as user-friendly as possible. And while we're at it, lets get people to start using encrypted e-mail / instant messaging / etc. as well! THAT would be a worthy government effort.
At least one company [transgaming.com] has already stated that they will not be able to work with the LPGL wine (citing among other things, possible DMCA violations) and will be actively helping Rewind (with cash and code it seems)
First of all, the DMCA is an unconstitutional law and it needs to be fought tooth and nail until it is defeated. Transgaming should not be required to implement copy controls for their emulator to be both useful and legal.
Second, this is more about Transgaming's business model than anything else. It's incompatible with LGPL because they require the ability to sell "value-added" proprietary versions of Wine. Since they don't own Wine, they are unable to dual-license it--such as making the old free and the new proprietary. Now, if we can trust them to release improvements back to the BSD codebase, this is fine. I, for one, would be more inclined to support them if they stuck with LGPL and just let subscribers control by vote the direction of development (ie. which games to support). Here's another idea: Proprietary game developers themselves! If game companies could pay Transgaming to support their latest and greatest games in Linux, don't you think their sales would rise? It would be sort of like Loki, except ensuring emulator support would be alot easier than porting. Then game companies could put stickers on their games that say "Works with Linux via Wine!" Or they could even include a Wine install kit (unsupported of course).
What Transgaming is doing is pretty cool as an interim solution for gamers. On the other hand, I hope to see more Free Software community-developed games in the future. There certainly is an incentive to create free games: they're fun to write and fun to play! One of these days I trust there'll be a really killer Open Source multiplayer game that everyone will enjoy and at no cost. Various libraries like SDL and CrystalSpace are making headway. It's going to be exciting as they mature.
I agree that greed is immoral, but I disagree that proprietary software promotes greed.
Hmm.. the definition I typically hold for 'greed' is "the excessive desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves." (WordNet) But of course that's relative to an extent. The reason I would say most proprietary software tends to promote greed is that more than often, the folks that own proprietary software companies are not just looking to do a good job and live comfortably--they're in it to get rich and be the next Big Thing. And many times, those people are not the ones even writing the code. It's often a similar situation to the music industry--you have these middle-men between the artists and consumers that are getting the biggest piece of the pie. With proprietary software, you also have a lot of wheel-reinventing which is not at all beneficial to the economy.
I believe that the only rational way to deal with intellectual property is to treat it in much the same way we treat physical property.
I don't agree on this basic assertion. There is no inherent moral / human right to claim information as property as you would a physical object. IP law is a compromise and a sort of 'virtual' right, which is why the US Constitution does not even require the recognition of it. ie.) Congress has a duty to promote peace and provide national defense, but only the (optional) right to create temporary protection for inventions and 'useful arts.' In a sense, copyright is more socialist than it is capitalist.
Now, some people in the Free Software movement have concluded that treating IP as normal P would result in nothing ever reaching the public domain. This is demonstrably false, since my regular P is routinely taxed. The expiration of copyright, and the limited scope of copyright is the equivalent of a tax on IP. So, the existance of proprietary software is nothing more than a practical social contract designed to strike a balance between users and creators.
The modern state of copyright does in fact prevent anything useful from reaching the public domain--especially with terms being extended every time Mickey Mouse is about to go PD. Will software written today have any value 95+ years from now? No. Absolutely none. That bit about "taxing" is plainly ridiculous because it implies true ownership. "Intellectual property" is a priveledge, NOT a right. On the other hand, the ownership of physical property IS a basic right in all free societies.
OTOH, when I see people gloating over how they are going to make MSFT irrelevant, how "all software should be free", how governments should be required to use it, plainly there is an anti-capitalist zeal associated with this. There is plainly a "vision" held by many people in the Free Software movement, and the GPL is their tool to implement that vision, and that vision is decidedly *not* capitalist.
I'm sorry, but you're way off here. I would consider myself one of the so-called 'zealots' that you refer to. However, my vision is not some imaginary socialist utopia where everybody blindly works for the good of all and is magically rewarded. GPL is a tool to ensure that control of the technology we embrace remains in our hands rather than being controlled primarily by business interests. Retaining control allows us (developers) to operate in a market with few barriers--a purely capitalist market.
The achievement of a monopoly by a GPL'd piece of software would effectively force you to work under the GPL. Linux may become the first test case for this. The harm to consumers could be incalculable, as development of alternatives could be stifled for decades.
OK, lets assume that happens--for example, the Open Source community comes up with a beautifully written office suite that effectively drives all proprietary ones out of the market. How is this bad? All it means is the wheel will never again need re-invented and perhaps finally a true industry standard will emerge. There's still plenty of room for innovation--new features to the existing codebase.. contributed by anyone who pleases. Where is this scenario bad? It's sure as heck a more optimal outcome for thepublic interest. And if you've really got that great of an idea on how to re-think the whole concept of an "office suite" then sure, it's your right to go proprietary.
It is also possible that the proprietary software could be outlawed and that is why RMS's accusation that it's immoral is such a sore spot. Why? Because all law has a moral foundation
As stated earlier, I would not take it to that extreme--outlawing proprietary. But on the other hand, if Open Source wins by nature and market forces, then so be it.
We will probably be dead by the time copylefted software starts to cause social problems. I am writing these things in the hopes that our great grand children might dig these words out of an archive some day, and that true liberators of the future will be able to point back to a prophet who foresaw their fate, who will encourage them to fight for what is right. My far greater hope is that they will never need it.
Nothing you have said thus far suggests any way in which copylefted software could cause social problems, but if you can provide a solid example, I'm all ears. Decreasing the size of the software industry due to increased efficiency of open development does not count, however, because this type of change is seen throughout all history and in all industries and is not a social problem. (compare: robotics replacing factory workers, etc.)