I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of PDF. It's not just to make text available, but to make documents (including images, and in some cases 3D content) that will look the same on ANY platform. This is absolutely necessary for publishing and other areas where you need a document format that isn't subject to all the inconsistencies of presentation that most word processing formats suffer. To my knowledge, there is no other document format that is intended to work this way. Microsoft was working on a PDF replacement, but I don't know much about it, and I'm sure it'd be bound to Microsoft.
I can agree that the Adobe Reader software sucks. But, there are many, many PDF readers available that work just fine without the Adobe nonsense, but still give you access to one of the nicest document formats available.
I'd steer clear of 1and1. While I don't know if this is indicative of a pattern in dealing with problems, they cut off Spocko's Brain, a weblog, due to a nastygram from ABC regarding an interesting radio show controversy. Since the purpose of avoiding GoDaddy is to get away from these knee-jerk responses, I'd not recommend 1and1 based on these recent actions. You can check the blog for information on what happened in more detail.
I was having some issues with GoDaddy and have been slowly migrating my domains to DynDNS.com. I'd used them in the past for dynamic DNS stuff (heck, what Linux user didn't at some point?), but didn't realize until recently that they were a full blown registrar. Their website is easy to use, their technical staff are knowledgeable, helpful and polite, and I've had an excellent experience with them so far. They're more expensive than GoDaddy ($15/year for most domains), but I think the extra service and attention to detail is worth it. I'd rather pay a little extra and support a good company.
Well, one, because the summary didn't say, two it's involving Microsoft (a US company), and three involving the BSA (which, as far as I know, primarily operates in the US). Oh, and four, it's Slashdot, since when do people RTFA?:D
In that particular case, though, didn't the court basically tell SCO to reveal which lines of code IBM was said to have copied, and IBM would have to produce them? However, since SCO didn't actually know what lines, they couldn't state which ones were alleged to have been copied. I thought that was the crux of the majority of the case, because SCO was basically asking the court to compel IBM to tell which lines they'd copied (thus, fishing for the information they needed to actually build a case against IBM). I'd think this would be much the same way, but, IANAL, so my understanding of the proceedings may very well be flawed.
Even a judge can violate your constitutional rights, and it'd hopefully be overturned later on appeal. However, what I did forget about is that we're potentially talking about corporations, and said corporations have no such rights. So it doesn't really matter anyway.:)
Hmmmm, seems awfully fishy. But, I guess that's what happens when the big corporations usurp the rights of citizens. Seems the only way around it is to not run any Microsoft software, which is what I do my best to do.:) Thanks for the explanation. I still think it's rather suspicious, but that does shed some light on the subject. I understand that there doesn't have to be a legitimate reason for you to sue somebody, but I was under the impression that by the time you got to court, the plaintiff is supposed to believe their claims are already true and not need additional proof.
Sue you for what, though? If they need to do an audit, they obviously don't have enough information to make a determination that you're lacking software licenses. Plus, if you don't have a contract with them to begin with, what are they going to sue you for? Copyright infringement? That again, would require they already have sufficient proof of said infringement. Of course, I think all of that is required for them to win the case, not necessarily for them to sue the pants off you and waste your time and money leading up to the case being dismissed for lack of evidence. So perhaps I'm just being an idealist.
The BSA is not a government entity, nor is it part of any law enforcement. If Microsoft wants to audit you, and you tell them no, can they actually force it on you? Or is this something where you have a contractual agreement with them (for your legitimate copies of Windows) that allows them to audit you whenever they feel like it? If so, wouldn't this simply encourage people who pirate a few copies of Windows to simply pirate all of them? You can't be in violation of a contract you don't have.
While I agree with you on pretty much all these points, you *CAN* order pizza over an autopatch. It's not illegal for you to do business-type activities unless you're using the frequencies to benefit financially. Ordering pizza is fine, but pizza drivers using ham radio to coordinate deliveries would be illegal. Make sense?
I see you chose to respond to this person's post, but ignored mine. The licenses are to separate those who are operating legally from those who are not. Your callsign is registered to a specific address, you have to pass a test to receive a license, and there are rules and regulations you must follow while operating your station. A lot of the requirements also change depending on the type of license.
So, on to the next part. Why is encryption illegal? That's simple. Because encryption hides what you're doing. When using amateur radio frequencies (or any frequencies, for that matter), you're utilizing a public resource. While utilizing this particular segment of the radio spectrum, there are rules on the content of your messages. If it's encrypted, it can't be determined whether or not you're following those rules. The FCC has been given the authority by the government to manage this public resource since the usable radio spectrum is finite. Radio stations, telivision stations, amateur radio operators, maritime radio operators, pilots, airports, companies that operate satellite equipment, cell phone companies, and more are all required to have licenses (whether via testing, purchasing, whatever) to operate on the public airwaves.
There are a few exceptions to the licensing rule such as part 15 devices, being a cell phone user, CB and FRS radio, etc., where a license for the end-user is not required. But, there are still rules you must follow when operating those devices as well, and they are much more strict.
Does it mean that people can't use the spectrum illegally? Nope. But laws don't ensure that people don't break them either. That's doesn't invalidate the reasons for having them, though.
You could do it, but it's against the spirit of the amateur radio community. One might also say to simply include obfuscated, GPLed code within your closed program, and nobody would ever know. Just because you can do it doesn't mean it's right, especially when it flies in face of the terms you've accepted by having your license. If you want a private conversation, don't use amateur radio. If you want to talk to other hams, experiment with new radio modes and such, talk to people on the ISS, help with communications in times of emergency, or do a number of other cool things, welcome to amateur radio.
Because amateur radio operators have access to a large number of frequencies, and they have a lot of flexibility with their own equipment. The FCC would like to ensure that you're at least somewhat knowledgeable about the rules and regulations of operating on the air. If you don't want a license, that's what all the part 15 stuff is for, where it's highly unlikely that it will interfere with anything important.
Add to that the cost of a tower on the end with the repeater or phone patch (since it's going to need to be high enough for you to get to it from a reasonable distance), the cost for the phone lines themselves, worrying about it all getting zapped by lightning when a storm is brewing, etc. Is it a cool thing? Sure. But it's hardly a replacement, especially not for the majority of the population.
Because it's more or less guaranteed that somebody is going to be listening to your QSO on the radio, but less likely (not impossible) for them to listen to the cell phone conversation. Plus, 70cm (with typical power) is going to transmit a bit farther than a cell phone at a higher frequency and tens or hundreds of milliwatts.
I think phone patches are cool, though I've never used one (I am a ham). But I don't see them as any sort of replacement for mobile phones. Plus, you can't use amateur frequencies to run your business, so any type of commercial communication is right out. No profanity (on both sides), no commercial communications, absolutely no privacy whatsoever, half duplex, and you're still going to need a phone line at the other end to communicate on the PSTN. No, not a replacement.
Umm, since when has wifi NOT been RF? I think it's overkill, but they don't have line-of-sight issues because the whole plane is within the line-of-sight of the APs. Now if they were doing optical or infrared wireless, that'd be different, but then everyone would need special hardware to use it and that'd just be a pain. But I'm pretty sure that wifi hasn't ever been anything but RF.:)
"That's what most people fail to realize, everyone has the most important vote of all, your wallet! If you don't like what they produce, don't buy it. Everyone can afford that, and if you get enough people to go along with you then these companies will have to get the idea that DRM is a bad idea."
Except that the majority of people are either too ignorant to know about DRM, or (like Linus) they know about it and don't care. This is where my initial argument (several posts back) comes into play that we have a responsibility to make sure that everybody knows what they're giving up when they support DRM. I do my best not to buy DRMed hardware and DRMed content. But, I'm an individual. The only way to get other people to understand DRM and make it possible for them to make an informed decision about it is to talk about it, provide information, and let everyone make up their own minds.
That said, I wish it could be easy and the people who liked DRM could have it, while those of us that oppose it could do without. But unfortunately I think it will end up being an all or nothing approach, and as it stands right now, it's going to be all with all hardware, content, etc., filled with DRM garbage.
I agree that people should have the right to purchase DRM'd products if the want. I think people should be able to sell it too as long as it's 1) clearly labeled and 2) doesn't infringe on fair use.
The problem, though, isn't that there aren't non-DRMed choices. It's that with all the lobbying and other crap the various content creation/distribution industries are doing, they're likely to make it so you have no non-DRMed choice. THAT is where I take issue and where I don't want to go. If you can't legally sell something that is DRM free, where's the choice?
Nevertheless, there is a fair-use doctrine as part of the constitutional law surrounding copyright. While that doctrine is sometimes subject to interpretation, that's the job of the courts. It's not the job of the copyright holders to decide what rights they have. Copyright is extended from the people to the content creators as incentive for their creation of works. By accepting copyright, they are also agreeing that the people receive rights as well as a condition of their copyright.
So, if anything, subverting copyright law in an effort to maintain copyright seems a little bit strange. It should probably invalidate the copyright altogether and make their works public domain (though I'm pretty certain there's no provision in the law for something of this nature). Unfortunately nothing will happen until somebody takes one of these copyright holders to court over their infringing on our rights. But that's not likely to happen since the little guy can't afford to sue these massive corporations.
You don't have the moral authority to force others to accept their rights. But, I think you do have the obligation to point out when somebody is being taken advantage of. If they don't care, that's fine, but at least you pointed it out to them. I'm not saying you need to throw yourself in between the person stealing money and the victim, nor do you have to completely involve yourself in the situation, but you should at least make the victim aware of the wrong done to them. It's common courtesy, if nothing else.
If you don't want these rights, that's fine. You're perfectly within your right to not listen, to not read websites or publications explaining your loss of rights, etc. If you disagree that it's a loss of rights, you're also more than welcome to proclaim the wonderful benefits of DRM to your heart's content. You can work all day long to convince people that DRM is good for them, that they don't need those fair use rights, and that they'll get much more for their dollar by going along with the content creators' wishes.
I also think Linus is well within is rights not to want to license Linux under GPLv3. He doesn't feel the new license protects anything worthwhile. That's fine, and he's entitled to his opinion. I disagree with his reasoning, but I'm entitled to mine. Not once in my post did I say that Linus needed to accept something that he didn't want to accept. I did, however, point out that he obviously doesn't care about such things, and that it was stupid to continue to be disappointed that he didn't show an interest in related topics.
I disagree. If you're at a store and notice that a customer keeps distracting the cashier, then proceeds to take a dollar or two from the cash drawer, you have a moral responsibility to either point it out to the cashier, contact the authorities, etc. Ignoring it makes you complicit in the act.
In essence, this type of activity is what the recording industry and movie industry are doing to consumers. They distract them long enough to steal a few rights from us when nobody is looking. The average person, much like the cashier in my example, is probably very trusting and open, especially to somebody they feel is trustworthy. Staying silent, refusing to point out that the consumer is being robbed blind, and then going on about how people are allowed to do as they please, is really just a way of saying you're either 1) too lazy to be bothered with doing the right thing or 2) too apathetic to care.
I really respect Linus for what he's done for Linux. I don't think it's appropriate for people to always look to him for guidance on such things, because he's consistently pointed out that he isn't an activist on any issues with which the FOSS community concerns itself. But, this isn't because he has some sort of superior view on the issues at hand. He simply doesn't care. So why don't we stop looking to Linus for answers here, and stop being disappointed by his views, and continue to fight the fight without him.
I don't disagree that PHP is very ugly at times (with function names that are anything but consistent). I agree with pretty much everything you said, and that it IS easy to do bad things in PHP. But I do still think it's the developer's responsibility to know their language and use it appropriately. Also, does Perl actually come with DBI? I was thinking you had to install it separately from the base distribution (i.e., via CPAN or something).
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of PDF. It's not just to make text available, but to make documents (including images, and in some cases 3D content) that will look the same on ANY platform. This is absolutely necessary for publishing and other areas where you need a document format that isn't subject to all the inconsistencies of presentation that most word processing formats suffer. To my knowledge, there is no other document format that is intended to work this way. Microsoft was working on a PDF replacement, but I don't know much about it, and I'm sure it'd be bound to Microsoft.
I can agree that the Adobe Reader software sucks. But, there are many, many PDF readers available that work just fine without the Adobe nonsense, but still give you access to one of the nicest document formats available.
I'd steer clear of 1and1. While I don't know if this is indicative of a pattern in dealing with problems, they cut off Spocko's Brain, a weblog, due to a nastygram from ABC regarding an interesting radio show controversy. Since the purpose of avoiding GoDaddy is to get away from these knee-jerk responses, I'd not recommend 1and1 based on these recent actions. You can check the blog for information on what happened in more detail.
I was having some issues with GoDaddy and have been slowly migrating my domains to DynDNS.com. I'd used them in the past for dynamic DNS stuff (heck, what Linux user didn't at some point?), but didn't realize until recently that they were a full blown registrar. Their website is easy to use, their technical staff are knowledgeable, helpful and polite, and I've had an excellent experience with them so far. They're more expensive than GoDaddy ($15/year for most domains), but I think the extra service and attention to detail is worth it. I'd rather pay a little extra and support a good company.
Such a... colorful explanation :D
Well, one, because the summary didn't say, two it's involving Microsoft (a US company), and three involving the BSA (which, as far as I know, primarily operates in the US). Oh, and four, it's Slashdot, since when do people RTFA? :D
In that particular case, though, didn't the court basically tell SCO to reveal which lines of code IBM was said to have copied, and IBM would have to produce them? However, since SCO didn't actually know what lines, they couldn't state which ones were alleged to have been copied. I thought that was the crux of the majority of the case, because SCO was basically asking the court to compel IBM to tell which lines they'd copied (thus, fishing for the information they needed to actually build a case against IBM). I'd think this would be much the same way, but, IANAL, so my understanding of the proceedings may very well be flawed.
Even a judge can violate your constitutional rights, and it'd hopefully be overturned later on appeal. However, what I did forget about is that we're potentially talking about corporations, and said corporations have no such rights. So it doesn't really matter anyway. :)
Hmmmm, seems awfully fishy. But, I guess that's what happens when the big corporations usurp the rights of citizens. Seems the only way around it is to not run any Microsoft software, which is what I do my best to do. :) Thanks for the explanation. I still think it's rather suspicious, but that does shed some light on the subject. I understand that there doesn't have to be a legitimate reason for you to sue somebody, but I was under the impression that by the time you got to court, the plaintiff is supposed to believe their claims are already true and not need additional proof.
Seriously? Or is this just a case of "I bet this would happen...", since what you described would be a violation of the fourth amendment.
Sue you for what, though? If they need to do an audit, they obviously don't have enough information to make a determination that you're lacking software licenses. Plus, if you don't have a contract with them to begin with, what are they going to sue you for? Copyright infringement? That again, would require they already have sufficient proof of said infringement. Of course, I think all of that is required for them to win the case, not necessarily for them to sue the pants off you and waste your time and money leading up to the case being dismissed for lack of evidence. So perhaps I'm just being an idealist.
The BSA is not a government entity, nor is it part of any law enforcement. If Microsoft wants to audit you, and you tell them no, can they actually force it on you? Or is this something where you have a contractual agreement with them (for your legitimate copies of Windows) that allows them to audit you whenever they feel like it? If so, wouldn't this simply encourage people who pirate a few copies of Windows to simply pirate all of them? You can't be in violation of a contract you don't have.
While I agree with you on pretty much all these points, you *CAN* order pizza over an autopatch. It's not illegal for you to do business-type activities unless you're using the frequencies to benefit financially. Ordering pizza is fine, but pizza drivers using ham radio to coordinate deliveries would be illegal. Make sense?
I see you chose to respond to this person's post, but ignored mine. The licenses are to separate those who are operating legally from those who are not. Your callsign is registered to a specific address, you have to pass a test to receive a license, and there are rules and regulations you must follow while operating your station. A lot of the requirements also change depending on the type of license.
So, on to the next part. Why is encryption illegal? That's simple. Because encryption hides what you're doing. When using amateur radio frequencies (or any frequencies, for that matter), you're utilizing a public resource. While utilizing this particular segment of the radio spectrum, there are rules on the content of your messages. If it's encrypted, it can't be determined whether or not you're following those rules. The FCC has been given the authority by the government to manage this public resource since the usable radio spectrum is finite. Radio stations, telivision stations, amateur radio operators, maritime radio operators, pilots, airports, companies that operate satellite equipment, cell phone companies, and more are all required to have licenses (whether via testing, purchasing, whatever) to operate on the public airwaves.
There are a few exceptions to the licensing rule such as part 15 devices, being a cell phone user, CB and FRS radio, etc., where a license for the end-user is not required. But, there are still rules you must follow when operating those devices as well, and they are much more strict.
Does it mean that people can't use the spectrum illegally? Nope. But laws don't ensure that people don't break them either. That's doesn't invalidate the reasons for having them, though.
You could do it, but it's against the spirit of the amateur radio community. One might also say to simply include obfuscated, GPLed code within your closed program, and nobody would ever know. Just because you can do it doesn't mean it's right, especially when it flies in face of the terms you've accepted by having your license. If you want a private conversation, don't use amateur radio. If you want to talk to other hams, experiment with new radio modes and such, talk to people on the ISS, help with communications in times of emergency, or do a number of other cool things, welcome to amateur radio.
Because amateur radio operators have access to a large number of frequencies, and they have a lot of flexibility with their own equipment. The FCC would like to ensure that you're at least somewhat knowledgeable about the rules and regulations of operating on the air. If you don't want a license, that's what all the part 15 stuff is for, where it's highly unlikely that it will interfere with anything important.
Add to that the cost of a tower on the end with the repeater or phone patch (since it's going to need to be high enough for you to get to it from a reasonable distance), the cost for the phone lines themselves, worrying about it all getting zapped by lightning when a storm is brewing, etc. Is it a cool thing? Sure. But it's hardly a replacement, especially not for the majority of the population.
Because it's more or less guaranteed that somebody is going to be listening to your QSO on the radio, but less likely (not impossible) for them to listen to the cell phone conversation. Plus, 70cm (with typical power) is going to transmit a bit farther than a cell phone at a higher frequency and tens or hundreds of milliwatts.
I think phone patches are cool, though I've never used one (I am a ham). But I don't see them as any sort of replacement for mobile phones. Plus, you can't use amateur frequencies to run your business, so any type of commercial communication is right out. No profanity (on both sides), no commercial communications, absolutely no privacy whatsoever, half duplex, and you're still going to need a phone line at the other end to communicate on the PSTN. No, not a replacement.
Understandable. :)
Umm, since when has wifi NOT been RF? I think it's overkill, but they don't have line-of-sight issues because the whole plane is within the line-of-sight of the APs. Now if they were doing optical or infrared wireless, that'd be different, but then everyone would need special hardware to use it and that'd just be a pain. But I'm pretty sure that wifi hasn't ever been anything but RF. :)
"That's what most people fail to realize, everyone has the most important vote of all, your wallet! If you don't like what they produce, don't buy it. Everyone can afford that, and if you get enough people to go along with you then these companies will have to get the idea that DRM is a bad idea."
Except that the majority of people are either too ignorant to know about DRM, or (like Linus) they know about it and don't care. This is where my initial argument (several posts back) comes into play that we have a responsibility to make sure that everybody knows what they're giving up when they support DRM. I do my best not to buy DRMed hardware and DRMed content. But, I'm an individual. The only way to get other people to understand DRM and make it possible for them to make an informed decision about it is to talk about it, provide information, and let everyone make up their own minds.
That said, I wish it could be easy and the people who liked DRM could have it, while those of us that oppose it could do without. But unfortunately I think it will end up being an all or nothing approach, and as it stands right now, it's going to be all with all hardware, content, etc., filled with DRM garbage.
I agree that people should have the right to purchase DRM'd products if the want. I think people should be able to sell it too as long as it's 1) clearly labeled and 2) doesn't infringe on fair use.
The problem, though, isn't that there aren't non-DRMed choices. It's that with all the lobbying and other crap the various content creation/distribution industries are doing, they're likely to make it so you have no non-DRMed choice. THAT is where I take issue and where I don't want to go. If you can't legally sell something that is DRM free, where's the choice?
Nevertheless, there is a fair-use doctrine as part of the constitutional law surrounding copyright. While that doctrine is sometimes subject to interpretation, that's the job of the courts. It's not the job of the copyright holders to decide what rights they have. Copyright is extended from the people to the content creators as incentive for their creation of works. By accepting copyright, they are also agreeing that the people receive rights as well as a condition of their copyright.
So, if anything, subverting copyright law in an effort to maintain copyright seems a little bit strange. It should probably invalidate the copyright altogether and make their works public domain (though I'm pretty certain there's no provision in the law for something of this nature). Unfortunately nothing will happen until somebody takes one of these copyright holders to court over their infringing on our rights. But that's not likely to happen since the little guy can't afford to sue these massive corporations.
You don't have the moral authority to force others to accept their rights. But, I think you do have the obligation to point out when somebody is being taken advantage of. If they don't care, that's fine, but at least you pointed it out to them. I'm not saying you need to throw yourself in between the person stealing money and the victim, nor do you have to completely involve yourself in the situation, but you should at least make the victim aware of the wrong done to them. It's common courtesy, if nothing else.
If you don't want these rights, that's fine. You're perfectly within your right to not listen, to not read websites or publications explaining your loss of rights, etc. If you disagree that it's a loss of rights, you're also more than welcome to proclaim the wonderful benefits of DRM to your heart's content. You can work all day long to convince people that DRM is good for them, that they don't need those fair use rights, and that they'll get much more for their dollar by going along with the content creators' wishes.
I also think Linus is well within is rights not to want to license Linux under GPLv3. He doesn't feel the new license protects anything worthwhile. That's fine, and he's entitled to his opinion. I disagree with his reasoning, but I'm entitled to mine. Not once in my post did I say that Linus needed to accept something that he didn't want to accept. I did, however, point out that he obviously doesn't care about such things, and that it was stupid to continue to be disappointed that he didn't show an interest in related topics.
I disagree. If you're at a store and notice that a customer keeps distracting the cashier, then proceeds to take a dollar or two from the cash drawer, you have a moral responsibility to either point it out to the cashier, contact the authorities, etc. Ignoring it makes you complicit in the act.
In essence, this type of activity is what the recording industry and movie industry are doing to consumers. They distract them long enough to steal a few rights from us when nobody is looking. The average person, much like the cashier in my example, is probably very trusting and open, especially to somebody they feel is trustworthy. Staying silent, refusing to point out that the consumer is being robbed blind, and then going on about how people are allowed to do as they please, is really just a way of saying you're either 1) too lazy to be bothered with doing the right thing or 2) too apathetic to care.
I really respect Linus for what he's done for Linux. I don't think it's appropriate for people to always look to him for guidance on such things, because he's consistently pointed out that he isn't an activist on any issues with which the FOSS community concerns itself. But, this isn't because he has some sort of superior view on the issues at hand. He simply doesn't care. So why don't we stop looking to Linus for answers here, and stop being disappointed by his views, and continue to fight the fight without him.
I don't disagree that PHP is very ugly at times (with function names that are anything but consistent). I agree with pretty much everything you said, and that it IS easy to do bad things in PHP. But I do still think it's the developer's responsibility to know their language and use it appropriately. Also, does Perl actually come with DBI? I was thinking you had to install it separately from the base distribution (i.e., via CPAN or something).