Under the DMCA you can get jail-time. I've no idea if there's any elements that would make this case covered under the DMCA though, I've not followed it closely enough.
Sometimes it does. That's up to the owners of the code.
Often, the code's returned to the FreeBSD codebase so that it will be maintained and still work on later versions of FreeBSD. There's numerous examples of this, for example vinum and the PAE support code.
As to the drivers issue, no. The reason Linux has more drivers is that Linux is more popular. Pure and simple. It has more coders working who will bother to hack out drivers for all sorts of esoteric hardware, and it has more companies willing to write drivers because it's more popular.
It's the same reason Windows has more games than MacOS.
After all, it's perfectly possible to write binary-only drivers for Linux too, via modules.
nVidia still are doing this in fact - for FreeBSD and Linux both.
"Firebird - Relational Database for the New Millennium".
There was also a paid ad for the "Firebird SQL Conference".
Hard to find, huh?
Something else I've noticed is that people's reactions on this subject are mostly based on their feelings for the product -- had a commercial company decided to launch the next generation of IE or whatever under the banned of Firebird, I guarentee you there'd be much screaming from the open source fans about how evil said company was to do that.
But I guess those that use Phoenix feel that it doesn't matter who had the name first...
This is the industry that claims internet radio - all those cool 20kbps and 56kbps - allows for "perfect digital copies", remember....
They'll not be laughing, they'll be crying that they're losing money due to lack of sales, and probably complaining that poor quality copies are tarnishing the image of the artist to boot...
"... but TEK Interactive of Fort Wayne offered to develop a more sophisticated site, which is the one up today.
Now it includes a background on the cases, a discussion board, PDF copies of the original lawsuit and online donation acceptance... "
Online donation acceptance? Hope that doesn't breech the patent too. Ahem.
On a more serious note, a patent on "the same sort of thing that we already do, only over http" surely wasn't new, innovative or non-obvious at the time of the original application?
A quick look around on the 'net reveals no G4 vs P4/Athlon benchmarks, which seems a mite odd given the codec is (according to Sorenson, at least) available for both. Curious, unless the Sorenson available for x86 isn't the same as that available for the Mac? I'm no expert on codecs. The few people I do know "into" video are pros and all swear by FCPro. In fact, porting the "must have" Apps that don't already exist on x86 would probably be a bigger deal than the OS, at this point. But I'm digressing, once again (a bad habit of mine).
Let's assume that Sorenson will always suck on currently available x86 - I'm not completely convinced, but I'm cynical like that. If Apple were to release an x86 box tomorrow, based upon, say, a P4 (they'd never go with current Athlons, due to the heat... Mr. Jobs and fans in computers, anyone?), they could always use a different codec optimized around the target processor. If you want Sorenson to convert to/from, they could still offer it as an option. There's still no technical reason Apple couldn't switch if they wanted to (pun intended) which was my original point a couple of posts back.
Actually (warning: sliding slightly off-topic again), Apple being Apple, they could use SSE2 without fear. After all, they'd only be releasing, say, P4's, and that guarentees you SSE2 support. So, a significant boot for floating point operations, too. Controlling the hardware offers some nice software development advantages.
The only thing that really matters with the codecs is that you can play the output on a wide number of machines, or that you can kick it out to a video deck or MPEG stream of some sort. None of these are significant problems.
Especially, as, IIRC, MPEG4 and H.263 are both offered for iMovie output.
BLAST's a highly specialized case, and I'd never even heard of it 'til you mentioned it, but I couldn't see it figuring highly in Apple's "reasons not to use x86" column. The new IBM PPC chip due 2Q03 is probably THE biggest reason, right now. I suspect having to eat humble pie after all their anti-x86 rants would be higher, tbh. I quite like Apple, but I'm no fan of Jobs.
Ah, well, enough rambling (Huzzah, screams both members of the crowd.)
I'm very much aware of the differences between SSE/3DNow and Altivec. For those that aren't sure, SSE/3DNow are mostly only of use on graphic operations, with the exception of the memory pre-fetch stuff, which is useful for any processing involving a large dataset. Altivec is a lot more comprehensive.
My point was that a mix of that and the current x86 processor's speed advantage - I mean 'work done', not clockspeed - would be more than enough to compensate for Altivec's speed. And that some of the graphical stuff can indeed be offloaded onto SSE/3DNow and even good ol' MMX.
The software you mentioned aren't doing anything that modern PCs can't do. Sure, it's rewriting, but that's always going to be the case when switching archs and dealing with code that uses SIMD instruction-sets. If you're moving platforms, you just do it once and it's done anyway. If it's something that's used commonly, you write a library. Nothing to give anyone at Apple genuine concern.
Heading horrendously off-topic, I've seen a number of benchmarks showing a G4 dual 1GHz G4 box to be slower than a single P4/2GHz machine. But that's benchmarks for you. The unscrupulous can pick the ones that demonstrate their point. I'm not totally convinced Photoshop is a level playing field, either.
You know the old saying. "Lies, damned lies, and benchmarks"....:)
Okay, perhaps that's overstating it a bit, but you know what I mean.
And I agree - this isn't X vs Y. Such discussions are pointless. Plus, my old 3.5MHz Z80A box 0wnz j00 4LL!
Depends. They could always just rewrite the optimized sections to make use of SSE, etc.
That coupled with the faster processors on offer in the x86 world would more than offset the lack of AltiVec.
Just looks at PC software that does similar jobs. It's out there, it works fine. Maybe not quite the same way you're used to, but that's mostly just a case of implementation details.
"The only copy-protected music CD is the one that doesn't play in ANY CD player."
Not true.
Any CD with the current "protection measures" is indeed protected. That doesn't make them impossible to copy.
Your description of an analog layer in the process is something they're trying to plug technically, with "watermarking", and legally with laws like the SSSCA (or CBTPA or whatever it's called this week).
Over time, as older CD players are replaced, it would hinder people more and more in copying CDs. And that's what copy protection's about. Perhaps a delusional few imagine it would ever be 100% effective. For everyone else who's implementing it, it's there to make copying sufficiently hard/enough of a hassle that the masses can't/won't do it.
The software industry recognised this many years ago. Look at protection on games. It prevents casual piracy of originals. You can still find the software out there if you're determined to copy it. It just makes it more hassle for the average consumer, to the point they won't both.
"I must say, even if you come across as a bit of a jerk here, you're awfully well informed. Who are you?"
Though it's awfully tempting to say "I'm Batman", thus completing the quote, that would be a lie (yes, really.) That's the first question you've asked that I'm not sure how to answer - who is anybody? Geek, BSD[L] fan/advocate and occasional slasdot reader, I guess? (No, I'm not Brett Glass. He's much scarier than I am.)
I had started to write replies to your many points, then I realised that not only was it turning into an essay (or chapter 4 or War and Peace, perhaps) but it's also "-1 off-topic" from the original "cover" story.
So, I shall tip my hat to you sir, say good day, and we can continue this debate in full next time one of the many GPL licensing stories hits the front page. I'm sure it shan't be too long.
"no you do not, the idea ownership system takes care of that. You now have the freedom to modify it only in ways that differ from the proprietary one that's already been done, and if you can think of a good extension to the proprietary extension, well forget it- that extension is *owned*, baby. You now have to pay someone to license it, assuming they don't just have it out for you and not want you to use it at all (e.g., microsoft vs. GNU developers)."
Rubbish. You still have the ORIGINAL source code. Someone modifying it and releasing it under the Evil Corp., Inc. EULA does not affect the original code - since that code is under the BSD license.
You have no rights to the extension's source code. Why should you? You didn't write it.
However, there's nothing to stop you making the original compatible - which has happened numerous times - and releasing it under whatever license you choose - yes, even the GPL.
The only thing that might stop you is a patent, and that's nothing to do with the license, not to mention a whole different argument.
"Kerberos is the classic example of extinguished code. I see you mention in another thread that it wasn't technically bsd, but that's a distinction without a difference. Finally, if no one embraces and extinguishes code, then the GPL doesn't matter anyway right?
... except it's not "extinguished". Kerberos is alive and well. And the GPL wouldn't have saved it anyway, since I've read several times that Microsoft re-implemented it from scratch for Windows. Please, tell me, how would the original code being GPL'd have changed that?
Where's the rest of the examples, btw? You gave one, one that wasn't "extinguished" at that.
"Aha, an ad hominem argument. Can we agree to drop these? If the facts don't support your argument, attack your adversary's politics, a classic strategy."
Classic strategy, insist your opponents arguments don't match the facts regardless of what the facts are. Point this out is hardly "an attack". But hey, emotive language and all that...
I'm afraid this argument IS political because the GPL is a license with political intent.
"I believe it's time for you to come up with some examples, buddy. The GNU project and various linux distributions have created a version of nearly every useful piece of software on the planet, and have created quite a few of their own along the way. Imagine if they didn't have to reinvent the wheel every time they started coding. Imagine if software had an incentive to interoperate because vendor lockin was illegal. The cost of creating software would drop immediately. The legal overhead involved in creating software would drop immediately. People would still want software, and just like bottled water, corporations would heavily market their products in a heavily commodified market based on extraneous benefits like service, support, update frequency, reputation for consistency, etc.
Examples? Walk into the store. The software you see on the shelves? Practically none of that would exist.
There may be software that does something similar in some areas, but for the most part, no. Look at the games market. How many really good open source games are there? Practically none.
Ever noticed how much open source is copying rather than innovating? Ever wondered why? I think you meant "RE-created" software.
Much of the niches that open source has a version of is a *copy* of the proprietary package. Not infrequently, the features they copied took R&D cash to develop them. In some cases, there's even white papers all about that R&D for anyone to read - I know they exist, I've read 'em.
Yes, people would still want software. But guess what? They wouldn't get it, in many cases. If that model was viable, they'd do it already. It's not. Microsoft software comes with all those benefits when you buy it, but it's still pirated to incredible levels. It's a simple fact, few people will pay for what they can get for free. Companies probably would, but you've still lost a significant market.
And, of course, if your software makes money via people using support, that *encourages* obfuscated software rather than ease-of-use. After all, if it's too easy to use, no-one would ever call support...
In fact, your argument here is starting to sound more and more like you want something for nothing.
As for "almost every" - well.. There's no good open source CAD software. There's no really good business accountancy software. There's practically no games that interest the mainsteam market. The only really good open-source 3D modeller is blender, and that was originally a commercial package that the community bought. And it's still not a patch on Maya. Audio editors? Nothing to touch Sound Forge. Even the mighty Gimp isn't considered the equal of Photoshop by the professional artists I know.
It's hard to build top quality software without a team of good programmers - and those guys aren't cheap. Change the world, and they'll just go elsewhere.
"Read the GPL lately? Anyone is free to sell GPL'd code, or code that extends GPL'd code. You just have to share and share alike, and allow others the *same freedoms you enjoyed* in creating it."
Which is fine and dandy, except no-one's going to pay for it. They can't sell existing code as is (for either license) because no-one's going to pay for code they can get for nothing. They can't value-add to it without giving the source to their additions to those who get their binary, and they can't restrict redistribution or use of that source. So, they can't make money off it. Just because the GPL doesn't actually say it can't be sold doesn't mean it doesn't significantly restrict it. So, they CAN'T sell you code, to all intents, since you cannot sell what no-one will buy.
"I am identifying a pattern here, you like to identify differences that don't matter. The length of the full version of the GPL (far more than you need to read to understand the concepts) is irrelevant, the licenses are functionally the same except for the terms of redistribution in the GPL designed to prevent vendor lockin. There is no other substantive difference."
And, again, it does NOT prevent vendor lock-in. It effectively prevents resale of software. That's it. That's all it was ever intended to prevent as of the original GPL. Stallman doesn't want programmers to make as much as they do make. It's all there in the GNU manifesto - RMS wants everyone to share software with everyone, for free.
"The explicit form of your statement is true. It is not the act of publishing that takes away my freedom, it is the claim to the ownership of the ideas in that software that limit my freedom. If you write software that compresses images in an obvious way and patent the system so no one can use it without your permission, you've taken away my freedom to compress my images in the obvious fashion. Each idea that gets *owned* can not be improved upon by anyone but the *owner*. The freedom to innovate is smothered as another branch of the tree of inquiry is blackened."
Except software isn't ownership of ideas. Software is *implementation* of ideas. If software were ownership of ideas, how could the open-source world copy all the ideas that came with the proprietary OSes?
Your anti-patent 'discussion' is irrelevent here, since we're not discussing the patent system, but copyright law.
Much of the world does not have software patents. Where I live doesn't.
"The idea behind GPL is to have a good reference that everyone can improve on to make it a better reference, and that no one can take away by making the most obvious or necessary improvements proprietary, or by using their monopolistic market force to make their proprietary extensions standard."
Bzzzt. Wrong. Thank you for playing.
The GNU manifesto clearly states it's about preventing companies like Microsoft selling software. It has nothing to do with reference implementations - and, in fact, most GPL'd software is a copy of existing software. Much of it even has "proprietary" extensions that, given the licensing, so the changes cannot be added back to the original without being rewritten from scratch! Strange but true, a complete (and intended) inversion.
"BSD License: The nonviral freedom to restrict the freedoms of others."
... despite the *fact* that the only time you've demonstrated a problem with freedom is when the code involves patents, not licenses.
"The BSD license allows you to make proprietary *extensions* to the original code, and gain control by adding something proprietary, no matter how obvious, which makes the original free work obsolete. As we all know, software does not stand still: or are you still using windows 3.1 and mozilla 0.8?"
Yes, yet you still have the freedom to take the original code and modify it. You can still update it to your heart's content.
Incidentally, I never used Windows 3.1, so I can't "still" be using it. See, choices existed then, too.
Adding proprietary extensions does NOT "gain" you control of the code. The original code still exists, and its license remains unchanged.
The freedom of choice of which to use - the original or the modified - is there for all to make. If others exercise that choice in a way you don't like, I'm afraid that's just too bad.
"That's the point of embrace-extend-extinguish: you take something free and make it non-free through proprietary extensions. It's a tried and true strategy for Microsoft. It works with BSD licensed code, but not with GPL'd code."
FUD. Please. Examples of BSDL'd code Microsoft has "extinguished".
Microsoft's strategy is one of lock-in. Third-party licenses cannot prevent this - no, not even the mighty GPL. Tell me, how could the GPL have ever prevented the Word format fiasco? The Microsoft lock-in problem is purely because Microsoft is the proverbial 800lb gorilla of the market-place. They CAN dictate standards. No amount of advocating the GPL can prevent this.
"Aha! There's the problem. Enhancements may be made and you say "you" make "your" choice, but licenses exist in a world with multiple people. The question at hand is, what license provides the greatest freedom of choice for the greatest number of people?"
The BSDL licence. It does not impose any restrictions. It is more free.
"The only difference between the GPL and the BSD license..."
ROTFL. Seriously, do you believe this? Have you actually *READ* the licenses? The BSDL is four short paragraphs, or approximately half a page. The GPL is 13 pages.
The problem here is you're pushing a *political* agenda. You would restrict choice to support your political view-point and claim that it is indeed freedom.
Someone publishing software does NOT restrict my freedom. I still choose whether I use it or I do not use it. If you believe this, then I just restricted your freedom because I was going to write FooBarBaz 1.0, a wonderful program that did everything ever. Then decided not to. So you can't use it. See? Your freedom's been restricted... oh, wait. No, it's not. No more than if you refuse to use Microsoft FooBarBaz 2003.
"Advocates of the BSD license want to trade the freedom to restric the freedoms of others for all the rest of the freedoms they could possibly have: I think it's a poor trade that leaves all of us taken together with less freedom of choice than a GPL style license affords us."
Advocates of the BSDL want the code to be free so that the marketplace can use it. Your problem is that you want to restrict how others use it to fit your own political agenda.
How many times can I say it? The GPL is NOT protection from those that would break standards or enact software-lockin.
Unless, that is, you enshrine in law the concept that all code must be GPL'd.
Do you want to live in that kind of world? I know I don't.
Much of the software that has been written would never have existed if proprietary software licensing were not allowed. And that's what we're talking about here. In that sense, the GPL restricts choice, by lessening the options.
I believe in the right for authors to make proprietary software - not just "extensions" - if they so wish. After that, the marketplace can take its choice.
Without enshrining the GPL as the One True License in law, you prevent exactly one scenario. That of a company taking your code and selling it.
Even the BSDL prevents this without any significant "added value" to the code -- why pay for what you can otherwise get free?
Otherwise, there's nothing created that cannot be re-created. And to make lock-in effective, you need to be big enough to push your proprietary standard despite the freely available, and thus widely distributed version. Say, like Microsoft. Do you honestly believe they can't write anything they can't re-use? And when writing it, introduce unintended problems as well as the "proprietary extensions"?
The reasoning behind BSDL is that we can avoid broken implementations by having a good reference that anyone can use - something the GPL would prevent and thus harm the industry.
Firstly, Kerberos wasn't BSDL'd. Pedantry, I admit, but accurate.
Secondly, IIRC, Microsoft didn't actually use the free code - which would take a lot of work to get talking to Windows - but rewrote it from scratch anyway. A common mis-conception.
Regardless of that, that's what they'd do if they couldn't take the original code-base. So you're still no better off if someone's determined to create a broken version.
The GPL can not and does not prevent this.
Licenses cannot enforce standards. Microsoft can create broken protocols no matter what. That's the advantage of being an 800lb gorilla in the marketplace.
The GPL would hinder this. Proprietary products would need ground-up rewrites that may not be completely compatible.
What the BSDL does is promote quality implementations for those who *WANT* to play by the rules and use existing standards. It ensures they get a version that is fully inter-operatble with the existing versions.
Going back to Kerberos, the users still have a choice -- use the M$ "extended" version, or stick with something that follows the original standard.
The purpose of the BSDL is to get standards adopted and prevent wheel-reinvention by having a freely-usable codebase out there - consider it a comprehensive code-library, if you will.
The users can't lose their freedom through BSDL code being relicensed, since they can still get the original BSDL'd code.
Enhancements to that code may or may not be released under the BSDL. And if they're commercial, you make your choice whether to use them or not.
"look at what Apple have managed to achieve with MacOS-X.. although they're newbies when it comes to BSD they've managed to design it around the home user rather than the geek.. "
Which is fine in that you wrote the original code and it's up to you to decide who can and can't use it.
However, that would be unreasonable for code released by the government - it is essentually "preferential treatment" for certain sections of society.
The other thing I'd like to draw attention to is that just taking your code and selling it without providing source wouldn't be terribly useful economically.
Anyone wishing to sell it would have to add value to the code first - in the form of extra features, etc. - in order for it to be commercially viable.
At which point, they're selling THEIR code. After all, your code is still free and widely available, so all they can logically be selling is the enhancements.
Oh, and I believe you'll find corporations do indeed have rights. Companies are often created under the "fictious name" system and are thus synonymous with individuals. Thus, companies do have rights too.
Slashdot Mirror
Under the DMCA you can get jail-time. I've no idea if there's any elements that would make this case covered under the DMCA though, I've not followed it closely enough.
That shold be "Irebird Calendar", surely?
The name should be "slapdash" -- just like the editting.
Sometimes it does. That's up to the owners of the code.
Often, the code's returned to the FreeBSD codebase so that it will
be maintained and still work on later versions of FreeBSD. There's
numerous examples of this, for example vinum and the PAE support code.
As to the drivers issue, no. The reason Linux has more drivers is that
Linux is more popular. Pure and simple. It has more coders working
who will bother to hack out drivers for all sorts of esoteric hardware,
and it has more companies willing to write drivers because it's more popular.
It's the same reason Windows has more games than MacOS.
After all, it's perfectly possible to write binary-only drivers for
Linux too, via modules.
nVidia still are doing this in fact - for FreeBSD and Linux both.
You know that Linux was started by a Finn and BSD came out of the university of Berkley in California, right?
Not only that, but I suspect Linux has far more foreign developers than BSD.
Most of the famous devs for Linux aren't from the US.
Damn straight.
But it appears they've got the "we're bigger and we're gonna do what WE want" attitude...
Yeah, and they did a really exhaustive search...
I put the word "Firebird" into google.
Top "hit" was:
"Firebird - Relational Database for the New Millennium".
There was also a paid ad for the "Firebird SQL Conference".
Hard to find, huh?
Something else I've noticed is that people's reactions on this subject are mostly based on their feelings for the product -- had a commercial company decided to launch the next generation of IE or whatever under the banned of Firebird, I guarentee you there'd be much screaming from the open source fans about how evil said company was to do that.
But I guess those that use Phoenix feel that it doesn't matter who had the name first...
-G-
This is the industry that claims internet radio - all those cool 20kbps and 56kbps - allows for "perfect digital copies", remember....
They'll not be laughing, they'll be crying that they're losing money due to lack of sales, and probably complaining that poor quality copies are tarnishing the image of the artist to boot...
"not CDs".
Indeed.
The Amiga was killed by its managment - Medhi Ali and Irving Gould in particular - as much as anything else.
A shame; The AAA chipset sounded pretty interesting at the time...
"
Now it includes a background on the cases, a discussion board, PDF copies of the original lawsuit and online donation acceptance
Online donation acceptance? Hope that doesn't breech the patent too. Ahem.
On a more serious note, a patent on "the same sort of thing that we already do, only over http" surely wasn't new, innovative or non-obvious at the time of the original application?
Hopefully the patent will be overturned...
If Microsoft dies, what will Gnome and KDE copy?
Oh yeah... MacOS X....
A quick look around on the 'net reveals no G4 vs P4/Athlon benchmarks, which seems a mite odd given the codec is (according to Sorenson, at least) available for both. Curious, unless the Sorenson available for x86 isn't the same as that available for the Mac? I'm no expert on codecs. The few people I do know "into" video are pros and all swear by FCPro. In fact, porting the "must have" Apps that don't already exist on x86 would probably be a bigger deal than the OS, at this point. But I'm digressing, once again (a bad habit of mine).
Let's assume that Sorenson will always suck on currently available x86 - I'm not completely convinced, but I'm cynical like that. If Apple were to release an x86 box tomorrow, based upon, say, a P4 (they'd never go with current Athlons, due to the heat... Mr. Jobs and fans in computers, anyone?), they could always use a different codec optimized around the target processor. If you want Sorenson to convert to/from, they could still offer it as an option. There's still no technical reason Apple couldn't switch if they wanted to (pun intended) which was my original point a couple of posts back.
Actually (warning: sliding slightly off-topic again), Apple being Apple, they could use SSE2 without fear. After all, they'd only be releasing, say, P4's, and that guarentees you SSE2 support. So, a significant boot for floating point operations, too. Controlling the hardware offers some nice software development advantages.
The only thing that really matters with the codecs is that you can play the output on a wide number of machines, or that you can kick it out to a video deck or MPEG stream of some sort. None of these are significant problems.
Especially, as, IIRC, MPEG4 and H.263 are both offered for iMovie output.
BLAST's a highly specialized case, and I'd never even heard of it 'til you mentioned it, but I couldn't see it figuring highly in Apple's "reasons not to use x86" column. The new IBM PPC chip due 2Q03 is probably THE biggest reason, right now. I suspect having to eat humble pie after all their anti-x86 rants would be higher, tbh. I quite like Apple, but I'm no fan of Jobs.
Ah, well, enough rambling (Huzzah, screams both members of the crowd.)
I'm very much aware of the differences between SSE/3DNow and Altivec. For those that aren't sure, SSE/3DNow are mostly only of use on graphic operations, with the exception of the memory pre-fetch stuff, which is useful for any processing involving a large dataset. Altivec is a lot more comprehensive.
My point was that a mix of that and the current x86 processor's speed advantage - I mean 'work done', not clockspeed - would be more than enough to compensate for Altivec's speed. And that some of the graphical stuff can indeed be offloaded onto SSE/3DNow and even good ol' MMX.
The software you mentioned aren't doing anything that modern PCs can't do.
Sure, it's rewriting, but that's always going to be the case when switching archs and dealing with code that uses SIMD instruction-sets. If you're moving platforms, you just do it once and it's done anyway. If it's something that's used commonly, you write a library. Nothing to give anyone at Apple genuine concern.
Heading horrendously off-topic, I've seen a number of benchmarks showing a G4 dual 1GHz G4 box to be slower than a single P4/2GHz machine. But that's benchmarks for you. The unscrupulous can pick the ones that demonstrate their point. I'm not totally convinced Photoshop is a level playing field, either.
You know the old saying. "Lies, damned lies, and benchmarks"....
Okay, perhaps that's overstating it a bit, but you know what I mean.
And I agree - this isn't X vs Y. Such discussions are pointless. Plus, my old 3.5MHz Z80A box 0wnz j00 4LL!
Depends.
They could always just rewrite the optimized sections to make use of SSE, etc.
That coupled with the faster processors on offer in the x86 world would more than offset the lack of AltiVec.
Just looks at PC software that does similar jobs. It's out there, it works fine. Maybe not quite the same way you're used to, but that's mostly just a case of implementation details.
"The only copy-protected music CD is the one that doesn't play in ANY CD player."
Not true.
Any CD with the current "protection measures" is indeed protected. That doesn't make them impossible to copy.
Your description of an analog layer in the process is something they're trying to plug technically, with "watermarking", and legally with laws like the SSSCA (or CBTPA or whatever it's called this week).
Over time, as older CD players are replaced, it would hinder people more and more in copying CDs. And that's what copy protection's about. Perhaps a delusional few imagine it would ever be 100% effective. For everyone else who's implementing it, it's there to make copying sufficiently hard/enough of a hassle that the masses can't/won't do it.
The software industry recognised this many years ago. Look at protection on games. It prevents casual piracy of originals. You can still find the software out there if you're determined to copy it. It just makes it more hassle for the average consumer, to the point they won't both.
"I must say, even if you come across as a bit of a jerk here, you're awfully well informed. Who are you?"
Though it's awfully tempting to say "I'm Batman", thus completing the quote, that would be a lie (yes, really.) That's the first question you've asked that I'm not sure how to answer - who is anybody? Geek, BSD[L] fan/advocate and occasional slasdot reader, I guess? (No, I'm not Brett Glass. He's much scarier than I am.)
I had started to write replies to your many points, then I realised that not only was it turning into an essay (or chapter 4 or War and Peace, perhaps) but it's also "-1 off-topic" from the original "cover" story.
So, I shall tip my hat to you sir, say good day, and we can continue this debate in full next time one of the many GPL licensing stories hits the front page. I'm sure it shan't be too long.
And now, to quote Samuel Pepys, "To bed!".
"no you do not, the idea ownership system takes care of that. You now have the freedom to modify it only in ways that differ from the proprietary one that's already been done, and if you can think of a good extension to the proprietary extension, well forget it- that extension is *owned*, baby. You now have to pay someone to license it, assuming they don't just have it out for you and not want you to use it at all (e.g., microsoft vs. GNU developers)."
Rubbish. You still have the ORIGINAL source code. Someone modifying it and releasing it under the Evil Corp., Inc. EULA does not affect the original code - since that code is under the BSD license.
You have no rights to the extension's source code. Why should you? You didn't write it.
However, there's nothing to stop you making the original compatible - which has happened numerous times - and releasing it under whatever license you choose - yes, even the GPL.
The only thing that might stop you is a patent, and that's nothing to do with the license, not to mention a whole different argument.
"Kerberos is the classic example of extinguished code. I see you mention in another thread that it wasn't technically bsd, but that's a distinction without a difference. Finally, if no one embraces and extinguishes code, then the GPL doesn't matter anyway right?
... except it's not "extinguished". Kerberos is alive and well. And the GPL wouldn't have saved it anyway, since I've read several times that Microsoft re-implemented it from scratch for Windows. Please, tell me, how would the original code being GPL'd have changed that?
Where's the rest of the examples, btw? You gave one, one that wasn't "extinguished" at that.
"Aha, an ad hominem argument. Can we agree to drop these? If the facts don't support your argument, attack your adversary's politics, a classic strategy."
Classic strategy, insist your opponents arguments don't match the facts regardless of what the facts are. Point this out is hardly "an attack". But hey, emotive language and all that...
I'm afraid this argument IS political because the GPL is a license with political intent.
"I believe it's time for you to come up with some examples, buddy. The GNU project and various linux distributions have created a version of nearly every useful piece of software on the planet, and have created quite a few of their own along the way. Imagine if they didn't have to reinvent the wheel every time they started coding. Imagine if software had an incentive to interoperate because vendor lockin was illegal. The cost of creating software would drop immediately. The legal overhead involved in creating software would drop immediately. People would still want software, and just like bottled water, corporations would heavily market their products in a heavily commodified market based on extraneous benefits like service, support, update frequency, reputation for consistency, etc.
Examples? Walk into the store. The software you see on the shelves? Practically none of that would exist.
There may be software that does something similar in some areas, but for the most part, no. Look at the games market. How many really good open source games are there? Practically none.
Ever noticed how much open source is copying rather than innovating? Ever wondered why? I think you meant "RE-created" software.
Much of the niches that open source has a version of is a *copy* of the proprietary package. Not infrequently, the features they copied took R&D cash to develop them. In some cases, there's even white papers all about that R&D for anyone to read - I know they exist, I've read 'em.
Yes, people would still want software. But guess what? They wouldn't get it, in many cases. If that model was viable, they'd do it already. It's not. Microsoft software comes with all those benefits when you buy it, but it's still pirated to incredible levels. It's a simple fact, few people will pay for what they can get for free. Companies probably would, but you've still lost a significant market.
And, of course, if your software makes money via people using support, that *encourages* obfuscated software rather than ease-of-use. After all, if it's too easy to use, no-one would ever call support...
In fact, your argument here is starting to sound more and more like you want something for nothing.
As for "almost every" - well.. There's no good open source CAD software. There's no really good business accountancy software. There's practically no games that interest the mainsteam market. The only really good open-source 3D modeller is blender, and that was originally a commercial package that the community bought. And it's still not a patch on Maya. Audio editors? Nothing to touch Sound Forge. Even the mighty Gimp isn't considered the equal of Photoshop by the professional artists I know.
It's hard to build top quality software without a team of good programmers - and those guys aren't cheap. Change the world, and they'll just go elsewhere.
"Read the GPL lately? Anyone is free to sell GPL'd code, or code that extends GPL'd code. You just have to share and share alike, and allow others the *same freedoms you enjoyed* in creating it."
Which is fine and dandy, except no-one's going to pay for it. They can't sell existing code as is (for either license) because no-one's going to pay for code they can get for nothing. They can't value-add to it without giving the source to their additions to those who get their binary, and they can't restrict redistribution or use of that source. So, they can't make money off it. Just because the GPL doesn't actually say it can't be sold doesn't mean it doesn't significantly restrict it. So, they CAN'T sell you code, to all intents, since you cannot sell what no-one will buy.
"I am identifying a pattern here, you like to identify differences that don't matter. The length of the full version of the GPL (far more than you need to read to understand the concepts) is irrelevant, the licenses are functionally the same except for the terms of redistribution in the GPL designed to prevent vendor lockin. There is no other substantive difference."
And, again, it does NOT prevent vendor lock-in. It effectively prevents resale of software. That's it. That's all it was ever intended to prevent as of the original GPL. Stallman doesn't want programmers to make as much as they do make. It's all there in the GNU manifesto - RMS wants everyone to share software with everyone, for free.
"The explicit form of your statement is true. It is not the act of publishing that takes away my freedom, it is the claim to the ownership of the ideas in that software that limit my freedom. If you write software that compresses images in an obvious way and patent the system so no one can use it without your permission, you've taken away my freedom to compress my images in the obvious fashion. Each idea that gets *owned* can not be improved upon by anyone but the *owner*. The freedom to innovate is smothered as another branch of the tree of inquiry is blackened."
Except software isn't ownership of ideas. Software is *implementation* of ideas. If software were ownership of ideas, how could the open-source world copy all the ideas that came with the proprietary OSes?
Your anti-patent 'discussion' is irrelevent here, since we're not discussing the patent system, but copyright law.
Much of the world does not have software patents. Where I live doesn't.
"The idea behind GPL is to have a good reference that everyone can improve on to make it a better reference, and that no one can take away by making the most obvious or necessary improvements proprietary, or by using their monopolistic market force to make their proprietary extensions standard."
Bzzzt. Wrong. Thank you for playing.
The GNU manifesto clearly states it's about preventing companies like Microsoft selling software. It has nothing to do with reference implementations - and, in fact, most GPL'd software is a copy of existing software. Much of it even has "proprietary" extensions that, given the licensing, so the changes cannot be added back to the original without being rewritten from scratch! Strange but true, a complete (and intended) inversion.
"BSD License: The nonviral freedom to restrict the freedoms of others."
... despite the *fact* that the only time you've demonstrated a problem with freedom is when the code involves patents, not licenses.
<sarcasm>
Yeah, why use encryption when you can send it all in plaintext?
</sarcasm>
"The BSD license allows you to make proprietary *extensions* to the original code, and gain control by adding something proprietary, no matter how obvious, which makes the original free work obsolete. As we all know, software does not stand still: or are you still using windows 3.1 and mozilla 0.8?"
Yes, yet you still have the freedom to take the original code and modify it. You can still update it to your heart's content.
Incidentally, I never used Windows 3.1, so I can't "still" be using it. See, choices existed then, too.
Adding proprietary extensions does NOT "gain" you control of the code. The original code still exists, and its license remains unchanged.
The freedom of choice of which to use - the original or the modified - is there for all to make. If others exercise that choice in a way you don't like, I'm afraid that's just too bad.
"That's the point of embrace-extend-extinguish: you take something free and make it non-free through proprietary extensions. It's a tried and true strategy for Microsoft. It works with BSD licensed code, but not with GPL'd code."
FUD. Please. Examples of BSDL'd code Microsoft has "extinguished".
Microsoft's strategy is one of lock-in. Third-party licenses cannot prevent this - no, not even the mighty GPL. Tell me, how could the GPL have ever prevented the Word format fiasco? The Microsoft lock-in problem is purely because Microsoft is the proverbial 800lb gorilla of the market-place. They CAN dictate standards. No amount of advocating the GPL can prevent this.
"Aha! There's the problem. Enhancements may be made and you say "you" make "your" choice, but licenses exist in a world with multiple people. The question at hand is, what license provides the greatest freedom of choice for the greatest number of people?"
The BSDL licence. It does not impose any restrictions. It is more free.
"The only difference between the GPL and the BSD license..."
ROTFL. Seriously, do you believe this? Have you actually *READ* the licenses? The BSDL is four short paragraphs, or approximately half a page. The GPL is 13 pages.
The problem here is you're pushing a *political* agenda. You would restrict choice to support your political view-point and claim that it is indeed freedom.
Someone publishing software does NOT restrict my freedom. I still choose whether I use it or I do not use it. If you believe this, then I just restricted your freedom because I was going to write FooBarBaz 1.0, a wonderful program that did everything ever. Then decided not to. So you can't use it. See? Your freedom's been restricted... oh, wait. No, it's not. No more than if you refuse to use Microsoft FooBarBaz 2003.
"Advocates of the BSD license want to trade the freedom to restric the freedoms of others for all the rest of the freedoms they could possibly have: I think it's a poor trade that leaves all of us taken together with less freedom of choice than a GPL style license affords us."
Advocates of the BSDL want the code to be free so that the marketplace can use it. Your problem is that you want to restrict how others use it to fit your own political agenda.
How many times can I say it? The GPL is NOT protection from those that would break standards or enact software-lockin.
Unless, that is, you enshrine in law the concept that all code must be GPL'd.
Do you want to live in that kind of world? I know I don't.
Much of the software that has been written would never have existed if proprietary software licensing were not allowed. And that's what we're talking about here. In that sense, the GPL restricts choice, by lessening the options.
I believe in the right for authors to make proprietary software - not just "extensions" - if they so wish. After that, the marketplace can take its choice.
Without enshrining the GPL as the One True License in law, you prevent exactly one scenario. That of a company taking your code and selling it.
Even the BSDL prevents this without any significant "added value" to the code -- why pay for what you can otherwise get free?
Otherwise, there's nothing created that cannot be re-created. And to make lock-in effective, you need to be big enough to push your proprietary standard despite the freely available, and thus widely distributed version. Say, like Microsoft. Do you honestly believe they can't write anything they can't re-use? And when writing it, introduce unintended problems as well as the "proprietary extensions"?
The reasoning behind BSDL is that we can avoid broken implementations by having a good reference that anyone can use - something the GPL would prevent and thus harm the industry.
So, we're back to square one.
An irrelevency.
Firstly, Kerberos wasn't BSDL'd. Pedantry, I admit, but accurate.
Secondly, IIRC, Microsoft didn't actually use the free code - which would take a lot of work to get talking to Windows - but rewrote it from scratch anyway. A common mis-conception.
Regardless of that, that's what they'd do if they couldn't take the original code-base. So you're still no better off if someone's determined to create a broken version.
The GPL can not and does not prevent this.
Licenses cannot enforce standards. Microsoft can create broken protocols no matter what. That's the advantage of being an 800lb gorilla in the marketplace.
The GPL would hinder this. Proprietary products would need ground-up rewrites that may not be completely compatible.
What the BSDL does is promote quality implementations for those who *WANT* to play by the rules and use existing standards. It ensures they get a version that is fully inter-operatble with the existing versions.
Going back to Kerberos, the users still have a choice -- use the M$ "extended" version, or stick with something that follows the original standard.
See, freedom of choice.
What rot.
The BSDL does not impose anything.
It *allows*. That's called freedom.
The purpose of the BSDL is to get standards adopted and prevent wheel-reinvention by having a freely-usable codebase out there - consider it a comprehensive code-library, if you will.
The users can't lose their freedom through BSDL code being relicensed, since they can still get the original BSDL'd code.
Enhancements to that code may or may not be released under the BSDL. And if they're commercial, you make your choice whether to use them or not.
Wonderful thing, freedom of choice.
"look at what Apple have managed to achieve with MacOS-X.. although they're newbies when it comes to BSD they've managed to design it around the home user rather than the geek.. "
NeXTStep is over 15 years old.
MacOS X is pretty much an enhanced NeXTStep.
The engineers are not "newbies" at it.
No 3D acceleration ? It's using an nVidia GeForce4 420 Go chipset. Of course it has 3D acceleration.
Which is fine in that you wrote the original code and it's up to you to decide who can and can't use it.
However, that would be unreasonable for code released by the government - it is essentually "preferential treatment" for certain sections of society.
The other thing I'd like to draw attention to is that just taking your code and selling it without providing source wouldn't be terribly useful economically.
Anyone wishing to sell it would have to add value to the code first - in the form of extra features, etc. - in order for it to be commercially viable.
At which point, they're selling THEIR code. After all, your code is still free and widely available, so all they can logically be selling is the enhancements.
Oh, and I believe you'll find corporations do indeed have rights. Companies are often created under the "fictious name" system and are thus synonymous with individuals. Thus, companies do have rights too.