'These large fee awards get passed on to consumers.'
I've heard this one before, and it makes me (as an armchair economist) absolutely livid. There is absolutely no correlation between Microsoft's cost of production and their market price. The idea that legal fees and fines or taxes get passed on to consumers is only true in competitive markets with a limited supply of the goods in question. Microsoft is selling a product with zero marginal cost (after producing the first copy of a new version of windows, each additional copy has effectively zero cost) in an extremely non-competitive market. Cost of production has absolutely nothing to do with their market price - it is determined entirely by the demand side.
it can be expected that IBM will be going head-to-head with its "friends" in the Linux community.
So if I'm reading this correctly, AdTI (AKA: Microsoft) is saying IBM is going to wind up turning on the Open Source community. Hmmm, let's see, which is more likely:
1. AdTI sent their empty-headed mouthpieces to the showers, actually hired some economy, psychology, an legal theory research people, did a complete workup on IBM, and have found that IBM's psychological and business strategy makeup is such that it will eventually grow deranged and attempt to kill off its fastest growing consulting division.
2. AdTI (AKA: Microsoft) thought to themselves, "hmmm, if we... er, I mean, Microsoft (wink, wink) try to use our... er, their patents against Linux, we're going to get slapped with an antitrust suit so big it'll make our last series of losses look like a traffic ticket . . . Patents are the only thing that can stop Linux now . . . I know what we'll do, we'll foment conflict. We'll say IBM is going to turn on the Linux community; those hotheaded hackers will turn on IBM just like they've turned on Sun. Then IBM will get all pissed off and go to the patent pimp-hand to try to bring those evil hackers in line. The resulting infighting may or may not kill Linux, but it will at least keep Linux and IBM distracted while we steal a few more years of monopoly profits from the world's businesses and private citizens, and we can use it in the media to claim noone who is using Linux is safe from the scourge of IBM."
Which one do you think is a more realistic scenario?
Even Homer Simpson can see this coming.
Only Homer Simpson would allow himself to be shined on by such a transparent seduction.
There is no point at which the "Fair Use supporters" will agree to stop wholesale infringement.
I'm a fair use supporter. In 2000 I deleted the 30 gigs of MP3s I had downloaded via Napster, because I could not come up with an ethical justification for having them. I currently have zero infringing material. I also have over 15 gigs of digital music ripped from the more than 200 CDs that I own. Fair use gives me the right to store my CDs in digital format, which increases my ability to enjoy the product I purchased. Since my willingness to pay for a product is directly proportional to my ability to derive enjoyment from that product, this is a good thing.
Nope, they've just realized IBM was the wrong company to pick that fight with. From their filing:
In other words, IBM is seeking to declare that a person or entity using Linux does not infringe upon SCO's copyrights and that some or all of SCO's copyrights are invalid and unenforceable. This precise issue will be litigated in a case filed by SCO against AutoZone in federal district court in Nevada; a case filed prior to the IBM filing its Tenth Counterclaim.... This newly added counterclaim raises issues separate and apart from the primary breach of contract and other direct claims and counterclaims in this case. Given this fact, and to avoid multiple suits determining substantially similar issues, tis Court should decline to exercise jurisdicition over and dismiss Counterclaim Ten. In the alternative, jCounterclaim Ten should be stayed pending the outcome in the prior filed AutoZone case.
So SCO is saying that since they've withdrawn their copyright claims against IBM, and IBM didn't file the copyright vacation counterclaim before SCO filed the copyright suit against AutoZone, that SCO v. AutoZone should be the deciding case in the copyright claim, not SCO v. IBM. In short, they figure they're rolling the dice, and rolling the dice against IBM has worse odds than rolling the dice against AutoZone.
"For too long, Federal prosecutors have been hindered in their pursuit of pirates, by the fact that they were limited to bringing criminal charges with high burdens of proof..."
Everyone here is talking about whether piracy is right or wrong. Duh. It's wrong. That's not the point.
This law would give the government the authority to punish people based on a preponderance of evidence. There has always been a distinction between civil and criminal law. When there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but two people are still in dispute, the government is not allowed to get involved, because they tip the balance too much. If there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, how is the government supposed to decide which side to support? This law is saying in effect, "whenever we're not sure if someone has been wronged or not, the government should back party A." It is completely antithetical to the distinction beetween civil and criminal law.
I think this could be indeed a useful law in the future, if used by us GPL lovers. What do you think?
First a clarification: This potential law is about civil law enforcement by the government.
And for the opinion, since you asked: The government should never under any circumstances take a side in a civil dispute. The entire concept of the distinction between civil and criminal disputes is that in civil law, person A is 51% right and person B is 49% right, and noone knows before the end of the case which side is which. This is referred to as "preponderance of evidence". Given that, which side should the government be backing in a given civil dispute? Neither.
Criminal law is the sole domain of government law enforcement.
Yea, fair use and all that crap. Most of the music downloaded is theft. The person has no copy of the song. The movies downloaded, Its theft plain and simple.
Hey, moron. This potential law isn't about the criminal act of copyright infringement - the JD already handles the criminal part. This potential law is about granting the government the authority to be involved in civil cases.
The entire concept of the distinction between civil and criminal law is that the government is not supposed to have the authority to punish we the people unless they have proof beyond reasonable doubt. Civil law is for cases where there is only a preponderance of evidence. Civil law has only ever been meant to encompass civil entity versus civil entity, not government versus governed.
When the dispute is civil entity versus civil entity, who is supposed to decide which side the government should back? Criminal law already deals with copyright infringement.
Take for example the IBM versus SCO fight - that is a civil dispute, which side should the government be backing? Neither. The government should never be involved in civil disputes except as the adjudicator.
But don't a lot of 'Open Source' license agreements forbid use in commercial or properitary software development? A.K.A. The GPL
From the OSI site:
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
Rationale: Distributors of open-source software have the right to make their own choices about their own software.
Yes, the GPL is conformant with this requirement. Software linked with GPLed libraries only inherits the GPL if it forms a single work, not any software with which they are merely distributed.
Basically he is advocating a 'don't throw the baby out with the bath water' approach.
It's hard not to become cynical about the state of US "democracy" when spyware and spam illicit a "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" response, but the DMCA slides through congress on a greased fast track.
It never ceases to amaze and annoy me that people consider Open and open to be two different words.
Based on your grammar and spelling, I assumed you are a native English speaker. As such, the section on "proper noun" in Wikipedia will help clarify the significance of capitalization. In short, "Proper nouns (also called proper names) are names and denote unique entities."
You gave it away for free. You're not entitled to money or acknowledgement of any kind.
Even the "freer than GPL" Apache and BSD style licenses don't waive the right of acknowledgement.
GPL: provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice
ASL: You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work
Which is to say, I am legally entitled to acknowledgement of a very specific kind. I do not place my code in the public domain, I use a variety of licenses from the FSF and Creative Commons, all of which preserve my right of attribution.
You have all the rights to use my code that are granted under traditional copyright. If you choose to do something that goes beyond those basic rights (EG: redistribution), you may do so under the terms of the license I have chosen, or by contacting me and negotiating for a different license. Nothing requires you to accept the acknowledgement terms, but nothing else grants you the right to redistribute my work.
If you can look at the source, and contribute back changes, it is "Open".
Either you meant "open" or you are mistaken. Open with a capital "O" refers to Open Source, the meaning of which can be found here.
Briefly: Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: 1. Free Redistribution 2. Source Code 3. Derived Works 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor 7. Distribution of License 8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
As an example, most of Microsoft's open source work is not Open Source, as it typically places restrictions on derived works and redistribution.
Very well said. I'm all for it. I completely agree that we have to go that direction, and that market forces will ultimately drag the xxAA kicking and screaming down that road.
That said, while that solution will be about 10 times as efficient as copyright, I believe that some degree of copyright enforcement in the meantime is better than none. (and possibly a lot is best of all, as the market will grow intolerant more quickly)
I've gotta agree with all the people pointing out that this should not be in YRO, and I'm glad to see that this community has a decent percentage of people who agree this is the right response from the FBI. For the rest of you, what's it going to take to make you people happy?
Step 1: They tried busting people like Ed Felten for talking about piracy tools. This was genuinely evil, and we bitched, saying "they should only go after the pirates, not people talking about tools that might be used for piracy."
Step 2: They started busting the pirates themselves. They handled it in a fairly Snidely Whiplash sort of way, but it is definitely within the bounds of the spirit of the law. And you all bitched, saying, "these are just home users, the real problem is the piracy rings."
Step 3: The crack a bunch of piracy rings. This is totally in line with the spirit and proper use of copyright. If some company were doing something similar with GPL software, we'd go after them and we would win. Please try to retain what remains of your credibility - don't bitch when organized, premeditative law breakers get their comeuppance.
How can so many supposedly technically competent people be bitching about this? Your email gets sent in plaintext. Where did you get your misguided expectation of privacy? If you wouldn't write it on the back of a postcard, you should not be writing it in email - that is one of the first rules of using the Internet. Is the problem that Google is telling you the truth? Would you rather they said nothing? Who do you trust - the company that tells you what they're doing with your email, or the company that says nothing?
If you want privacy, encrypt your mail. If you don't encrypt your mail, you do not have privacy.
If you actually studied hard, and know your way around, you should consider working up a portfolio. Most of the traditional creative arts require a portfolio. For years people saw computer science as an engineering-like process, and assumed a degree alone meant something. Actually, nowadays, a traditional engineering degree without a masters or PhD thesis doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot either.
But I digress. The point is it is extremely hard to tell how proficient a programmer is by simply talking to them. OTOH, five minutes browsing their source code tells you exactly what they know, and how they use that knowledge. Beware though; if you didn't actually learn anything in school, that too will show through like a sore thumb - if this is the case, avoid the source code and try to get the interviewer to talk about his kids.
Pick something random, peculiar, or fun. Try to do something that exercises all the areas you feel you are proficient in. Then write a simple program - a couple thousand lines is more than enough. If you're writing OO and use UML, consider adding that to the package. Same with unit tests, flowcharts, build scripts, or whatever else are the artifacts of your development process.
It has worked in my favour on job interviews, and I always appreciate when a candidate that I'm interviewing has something to show.
does the nature of the World Wide Web in fact give sites like Wonkette, Drudge, or even Slashdot a free pass on accuracy if it means the difference between getting the scoop or not?
This may sound counterintuitive, but I read Slashdot largely because it provides me with what I believe is a very accurate and unbiased view of tech news. I know I've just made some of you spew coffee on your monitors, and I apologize. Here's the trick though - wait until the story has a few hundred comments, then browse at +4. Slashdot is a fantastic collaborative information processing system. On all but the most polarized issues (EG: SCO), the threads here will almost always present all sides of an argument, and are merciless in debunking the bunkers.
While it's true that the overall readership of Slashdot has a slant, even a supposed arch-enemy like Microsoft always gets a few highly rated posts presenting MS's side of the argument.
The trick is to know how to use a site like Slashdot - don't take any one comment as gospel (except the ones from me, of course). Read them all with an open mind, let simmer, and you'll find you get a far less partial perspective than you can get from traditional news-media sources that typically have stories written by a single person. And you get to see run-on sentences that boggle the mind.
I just gave them the $72.38 I had sitting in my PayPal account. Stupid software patents have cost me a lot more than that in time reading Slashdot articles alone. Give till it hurts.
OK, I'm being redundant, as others have already pointed this out, but there are 22 definitions of free, plus subdefinitions, in the American Heritage Dictionary. We find RMS's within the first three: free (P) Pronunciation Key (fr) adj. freer, freest
1. Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
2. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another: felt free to go.
3.a. Having political independence: "America... is the freest and wealthiest nation in the world" (Rudolph W. Giuliani).
3.b. Governed by consent and possessing or granting civil liberties: a free citizenry.
3.c. Not subject to arbitrary interference by a government: a free press.
RMS is using definition 3.b., "Governed by consent and possessing or granting civil liberties."
1. You make your own decision about whether you wish to become subject to the GPL license (by choosing whether you wish to distribute it or derivative works). 2. By accepting those terms, you agree to a set of civil liberties; namely, that the work and all derivative works, if distributed, must be made available for access and mutation.
This is identical to the concept of "free" used in the US government and the governments of many other nations. You are free to be a US citizen if you agree that you will not, for example, deny another the right to speak. You are also bound to certain courses of action by your freedom; for example, it is your personal duty to fix the government when it gets too far out of line. The GPL has a political agenda just like the US Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights do, and in both cases, they are in accord with one of the commonly accepted definitions of "free."
None of this makes RMS's definition "right", or Gosling's definition "wrong." The only objectively wrong thing would be to say that either of them is wrong. Both forms of "free" are encompassed in the definition of the term "free."
At the rate we are going with outsourcing jobs and having decreasing technical educational levels... by the time i am old we will not be tha major world power anymore.
This is very much the same question that was raised in the 60s and 70s when Japan was closing in on (and in many cases surpassing) our level of production efficiency at an alarming rate. I'm not going to address the technical education issue, as it is a separate problem, but the parallels with the Japanese industry case are all positive.
As Japan began improving their industrial efficiency, and because of our rapidly warming relationship with them, we learned a great deal from them. Perhaps the most prominent example of this is Kaizen. We learned a great deal about continuous improvement of the quality of the production system. As Japan's productivity grew, we adopted some of their methods and we prospered. Now Japan is one of our most important trading partners.
And it's not just a matter of industrial economics that have no effect on the little guy. It is because of those increases in productivity that blue collar workers in the US can afford things like console gaming systems, reliable cars, big computer monitors, musical instruments, and a whole host of other things that make our lives more enjoyable - things that make our paychecks go further toward our entertainment, enlightenment, or whatever else we choose to pursue.
So you may be right, we may become a smaller fish relative to the other fish in the pond. We may not even be the biggest fish for a whole lot longer. But if the experience with Japan is any guide, we while our relative size may diminish, our absolute size will increase. If your goal is to be better than everyone else, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. If your goal is to be better than you were yesterday, then you are on the right path. This is the path I would like to see our nation take.
Avoiding the Real Evil in the World
on
The Blues for LEDs
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
I think we all know what really motivated this editorial. It's so obvious as to be as blinding as the blue LEDs he pretends are so bad. He is clearly afraid of tackling the true evil in the world. I'm talking, of course, about the two truly evil consumer products. Products so vile and twisted that one barely should speak their name. I'm speaking, of course, of Saran Wrap and packing tape.
There. I've said it. We all know about it, but we all blithely wander through our days pretending these products weren't spawned from a twisted and sociopathic mind. Have you ever tried to use one of these products? The instant a section of either of these clear plastic "miracles of modern technology" comes away from it's little cardboard spool and tiny metal teeth (don't get me started on those sweater-eating life-ruiners), it becomes a slithering cellophane serpent, bent on destruction; maliciously bent on one brief instant of contact with itself. One tiny touch and it bonds to itself with a monomaniacal intensity rivalled only by Madonna's attempts to remain relevant to teenagers.
What a weight off my mind. I simply couldn't stand the way we all ignore this problem any longer. I've kept this bottled up inside me for so long, I had forgotten what it feels like to think about anything else. I feel... so... free! You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to go to the supermarket, get the biggest bag of Kett'l Kook'd potato chips they have, and continue my hunt for the elusive potato chip that looks like Vincent Price.
Hey if you're gonna die soon (no I'm no trying to be morbid) and you have wishes to be cremated, why not do it this way?
I was thinking the same thing, but the cost is prohibitive. Apparently cremated human remains weigh between 4 and 10 pounds, meaning you could only get about 3 people in the capsule. $2 million a pop isn't the right price.
Of course, there may be more than just carbon left after the mere 1500 degrees in a standard crematorium. If a serious industrial incinerator could get the weight down to around one third of a pound (doubtful, we are carbon based after all), then it'd be a goer - $100,000 is definitely within the reach of 60 people within the 15 month delay till it flies.
Of course, the families would want insurance, and that'd jack the price back up. Maybe you shoot for.2 pounds and 100 participants.
Slashdot Mirror
people have chosen to scrupulously borrow or imitate Unix.
I guess he's saying this to contrast the way Microsoft unscrupulously imitated CPM/DOS, Lotus 1,2,3, Macintosh, WordPerfect, Stac . . .
'These large fee awards get passed on to consumers.'
I've heard this one before, and it makes me (as an armchair economist) absolutely livid. There is absolutely no correlation between Microsoft's cost of production and their market price. The idea that legal fees and fines or taxes get passed on to consumers is only true in competitive markets with a limited supply of the goods in question. Microsoft is selling a product with zero marginal cost (after producing the first copy of a new version of windows, each additional copy has effectively zero cost) in an extremely non-competitive market. Cost of production has absolutely nothing to do with their market price - it is determined entirely by the demand side.
it can be expected that IBM will be going head-to-head with its "friends" in the Linux community.
So if I'm reading this correctly, AdTI (AKA: Microsoft) is saying IBM is going to wind up turning on the Open Source community. Hmmm, let's see, which is more likely:
1. AdTI sent their empty-headed mouthpieces to the showers, actually hired some economy, psychology, an legal theory research people, did a complete workup on IBM, and have found that IBM's psychological and business strategy makeup is such that it will eventually grow deranged and attempt to kill off its fastest growing consulting division.
2. AdTI (AKA: Microsoft) thought to themselves, "hmmm, if we... er, I mean, Microsoft (wink, wink) try to use our... er, their patents against Linux, we're going to get slapped with an antitrust suit so big it'll make our last series of losses look like a traffic ticket . . . Patents are the only thing that can stop Linux now . . . I know what we'll do, we'll foment conflict. We'll say IBM is going to turn on the Linux community; those hotheaded hackers will turn on IBM just like they've turned on Sun. Then IBM will get all pissed off and go to the patent pimp-hand to try to bring those evil hackers in line. The resulting infighting may or may not kill Linux, but it will at least keep Linux and IBM distracted while we steal a few more years of monopoly profits from the world's businesses and private citizens, and we can use it in the media to claim noone who is using Linux is safe from the scourge of IBM."
Which one do you think is a more realistic scenario?
Even Homer Simpson can see this coming.
Only Homer Simpson would allow himself to be shined on by such a transparent seduction.
There is no point at which the "Fair Use supporters" will agree to stop wholesale infringement.
I'm a fair use supporter. In 2000 I deleted the 30 gigs of MP3s I had downloaded via Napster, because I could not come up with an ethical justification for having them. I currently have zero infringing material. I also have over 15 gigs of digital music ripped from the more than 200 CDs that I own. Fair use gives me the right to store my CDs in digital format, which increases my ability to enjoy the product I purchased. Since my willingness to pay for a product is directly proportional to my ability to derive enjoyment from that product, this is a good thing.
Has SCO backed off of all Linux claims?!?
... This newly added counterclaim raises issues separate and apart from the primary breach of contract and other direct claims and counterclaims in this case. Given this fact, and to avoid multiple suits determining substantially similar issues, tis Court should decline to exercise jurisdicition over and dismiss Counterclaim Ten. In the alternative, jCounterclaim Ten should be stayed pending the outcome in the prior filed AutoZone case.
Nope, they've just realized IBM was the wrong company to pick that fight with. From their filing:
In other words, IBM is seeking to declare that a person or entity using Linux does not infringe upon SCO's copyrights and that some or all of SCO's copyrights are invalid and unenforceable. This precise issue will be litigated in a case filed by SCO against AutoZone in federal district court in Nevada; a case filed prior to the IBM filing its Tenth Counterclaim.
So SCO is saying that since they've withdrawn their copyright claims against IBM, and IBM didn't file the copyright vacation counterclaim before SCO filed the copyright suit against AutoZone, that SCO v. AutoZone should be the deciding case in the copyright claim, not SCO v. IBM. In short, they figure they're rolling the dice, and rolling the dice against IBM has worse odds than rolling the dice against AutoZone.
"For too long, Federal prosecutors have been hindered in their pursuit of pirates, by the fact that they were limited to bringing criminal charges with high burdens of proof..."
Everyone here is talking about whether piracy is right or wrong. Duh. It's wrong. That's not the point.
This law would give the government the authority to punish people based on a preponderance of evidence. There has always been a distinction between civil and criminal law. When there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but two people are still in dispute, the government is not allowed to get involved, because they tip the balance too much. If there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, how is the government supposed to decide which side to support? This law is saying in effect, "whenever we're not sure if someone has been wronged or not, the government should back party A." It is completely antithetical to the distinction beetween civil and criminal law.
I think this could be indeed a useful law in the future, if used by us GPL lovers. What do you think?
First a clarification: This potential law is about civil law enforcement by the government.
And for the opinion, since you asked: The government should never under any circumstances take a side in a civil dispute. The entire concept of the distinction between civil and criminal disputes is that in civil law, person A is 51% right and person B is 49% right, and noone knows before the end of the case which side is which. This is referred to as "preponderance of evidence". Given that, which side should the government be backing in a given civil dispute? Neither.
Criminal law is the sole domain of government law enforcement.
Yea, fair use and all that crap. Most of the music downloaded is theft. The person has no copy of the song. The movies downloaded, Its theft plain and simple.
Hey, moron. This potential law isn't about the criminal act of copyright infringement - the JD already handles the criminal part. This potential law is about granting the government the authority to be involved in civil cases.
The entire concept of the distinction between civil and criminal law is that the government is not supposed to have the authority to punish we the people unless they have proof beyond reasonable doubt. Civil law is for cases where there is only a preponderance of evidence. Civil law has only ever been meant to encompass civil entity versus civil entity, not government versus governed.
When the dispute is civil entity versus civil entity, who is supposed to decide which side the government should back? Criminal law already deals with copyright infringement.
Take for example the IBM versus SCO fight - that is a civil dispute, which side should the government be backing? Neither. The government should never be involved in civil disputes except as the adjudicator.
But don't a lot of 'Open Source' license agreements forbid use in commercial or properitary software development? A.K.A. The GPL
From the OSI site:
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
Rationale: Distributors of open-source software have the right to make their own choices about their own software.
Yes, the GPL is conformant with this requirement. Software linked with GPLed libraries only inherits the GPL if it forms a single work, not any software with which they are merely distributed.
Basically he is advocating a 'don't throw the baby out with the bath water' approach.
It's hard not to become cynical about the state of US "democracy" when spyware and spam illicit a "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" response, but the DMCA slides through congress on a greased fast track.
It never ceases to amaze and annoy me that people consider Open and open to be two different words.
Based on your grammar and spelling, I assumed you are a native English speaker. As such, the section on "proper noun" in Wikipedia will help clarify the significance of capitalization. In short, "Proper nouns (also called proper names) are names and denote unique entities."
You gave it away for free. You're not entitled to money or acknowledgement of any kind.
Even the "freer than GPL" Apache and BSD style licenses don't waive the right of acknowledgement.
GPL:
provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice
ASL:
You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work
Which is to say, I am legally entitled to acknowledgement of a very specific kind. I do not place my code in the public domain, I use a variety of licenses from the FSF and Creative Commons, all of which preserve my right of attribution.
You have all the rights to use my code that are granted under traditional copyright. If you choose to do something that goes beyond those basic rights (EG: redistribution), you may do so under the terms of the license I have chosen, or by contacting me and negotiating for a different license. Nothing requires you to accept the acknowledgement terms, but nothing else grants you the right to redistribute my work.
If you can look at the source, and contribute back changes, it is "Open".
Either you meant "open" or you are mistaken. Open with a capital "O" refers to Open Source, the meaning of which can be found here.
Briefly:
Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
1. Free Redistribution
2. Source Code
3. Derived Works
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
7. Distribution of License
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
As an example, most of Microsoft's open source work is not Open Source, as it typically places restrictions on derived works and redistribution.
Very well said. I'm all for it. I completely agree that we have to go that direction, and that market forces will ultimately drag the xxAA kicking and screaming down that road.
That said, while that solution will be about 10 times as efficient as copyright, I believe that some degree of copyright enforcement in the meantime is better than none. (and possibly a lot is best of all, as the market will grow intolerant more quickly)
I've gotta agree with all the people pointing out that this should not be in YRO, and I'm glad to see that this community has a decent percentage of people who agree this is the right response from the FBI. For the rest of you, what's it going to take to make you people happy?
Step 1: They tried busting people like Ed Felten for talking about piracy tools. This was genuinely evil, and we bitched, saying "they should only go after the pirates, not people talking about tools that might be used for piracy."
Step 2: They started busting the pirates themselves. They handled it in a fairly Snidely Whiplash sort of way, but it is definitely within the bounds of the spirit of the law. And you all bitched, saying, "these are just home users, the real problem is the piracy rings."
Step 3: The crack a bunch of piracy rings. This is totally in line with the spirit and proper use of copyright. If some company were doing something similar with GPL software, we'd go after them and we would win. Please try to retain what remains of your credibility - don't bitch when organized, premeditative law breakers get their comeuppance.
How can so many supposedly technically competent people be bitching about this? Your email gets sent in plaintext. Where did you get your misguided expectation of privacy? If you wouldn't write it on the back of a postcard, you should not be writing it in email - that is one of the first rules of using the Internet. Is the problem that Google is telling you the truth? Would you rather they said nothing? Who do you trust - the company that tells you what they're doing with your email, or the company that says nothing?
If you want privacy, encrypt your mail. If you don't encrypt your mail, you do not have privacy.
If you actually studied hard, and know your way around, you should consider working up a portfolio. Most of the traditional creative arts require a portfolio. For years people saw computer science as an engineering-like process, and assumed a degree alone meant something. Actually, nowadays, a traditional engineering degree without a masters or PhD thesis doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot either.
But I digress. The point is it is extremely hard to tell how proficient a programmer is by simply talking to them. OTOH, five minutes browsing their source code tells you exactly what they know, and how they use that knowledge. Beware though; if you didn't actually learn anything in school, that too will show through like a sore thumb - if this is the case, avoid the source code and try to get the interviewer to talk about his kids.
Pick something random, peculiar, or fun. Try to do something that exercises all the areas you feel you are proficient in. Then write a simple program - a couple thousand lines is more than enough. If you're writing OO and use UML, consider adding that to the package. Same with unit tests, flowcharts, build scripts, or whatever else are the artifacts of your development process.
It has worked in my favour on job interviews, and I always appreciate when a candidate that I'm interviewing has something to show.
does the nature of the World Wide Web in fact give sites like Wonkette, Drudge, or even Slashdot a free pass on accuracy if it means the difference between getting the scoop or not?
This may sound counterintuitive, but I read Slashdot largely because it provides me with what I believe is a very accurate and unbiased view of tech news. I know I've just made some of you spew coffee on your monitors, and I apologize. Here's the trick though - wait until the story has a few hundred comments, then browse at +4. Slashdot is a fantastic collaborative information processing system. On all but the most polarized issues (EG: SCO), the threads here will almost always present all sides of an argument, and are merciless in debunking the bunkers.
While it's true that the overall readership of Slashdot has a slant, even a supposed arch-enemy like Microsoft always gets a few highly rated posts presenting MS's side of the argument.
The trick is to know how to use a site like Slashdot - don't take any one comment as gospel (except the ones from me, of course). Read them all with an open mind, let simmer, and you'll find you get a far less partial perspective than you can get from traditional news-media sources that typically have stories written by a single person.
And you get to see run-on sentences that boggle the mind.
I just gave them the $72.38 I had sitting in my PayPal account. Stupid software patents have cost me a lot more than that in time reading Slashdot articles alone. Give till it hurts.
The "Online" link on this page will take you straight to PayPal.
It's fake if this is true, I can't get to the article to verify myself.
Wow. You just blew all my logic circuits.
OK, I'm being redundant, as others have already pointed this out, but there are 22 definitions of free, plus subdefinitions, in the American Heritage Dictionary. We find RMS's within the first three:
free (P) Pronunciation Key (fr)
adj. freer, freest
1. Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
2. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another: felt free to go.
3.a. Having political independence: "America... is the freest and wealthiest nation in the world" (Rudolph W. Giuliani).
3.b. Governed by consent and possessing or granting civil liberties: a free citizenry.
3.c. Not subject to arbitrary interference by a government: a free press.
RMS is using definition 3.b., "Governed by consent and possessing or granting civil liberties."
1. You make your own decision about whether you wish to become subject to the GPL license (by choosing whether you wish to distribute it or derivative works).
2. By accepting those terms, you agree to a set of civil liberties; namely, that the work and all derivative works, if distributed, must be made available for access and mutation.
This is identical to the concept of "free" used in the US government and the governments of many other nations. You are free to be a US citizen if you agree that you will not, for example, deny another the right to speak. You are also bound to certain courses of action by your freedom; for example, it is your personal duty to fix the government when it gets too far out of line. The GPL has a political agenda just like the US Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights do, and in both cases, they are in accord with one of the commonly accepted definitions of "free."
None of this makes RMS's definition "right", or Gosling's definition "wrong." The only objectively wrong thing would be to say that either of them is wrong. Both forms of "free" are encompassed in the definition of the term "free."
A classic logic error, whose name I forget right now.
Way off topic, but I found myself in the same predicament recently, and found this handy guide.
At the rate we are going with outsourcing jobs and having decreasing technical educational levels ... by the time i am old we will not be tha major world power anymore.
This is very much the same question that was raised in the 60s and 70s when Japan was closing in on (and in many cases surpassing) our level of production efficiency at an alarming rate. I'm not going to address the technical education issue, as it is a separate problem, but the parallels with the Japanese industry case are all positive.
As Japan began improving their industrial efficiency, and because of our rapidly warming relationship with them, we learned a great deal from them. Perhaps the most prominent example of this is Kaizen. We learned a great deal about continuous improvement of the quality of the production system. As Japan's productivity grew, we adopted some of their methods and we prospered. Now Japan is one of our most important trading partners.
And it's not just a matter of industrial economics that have no effect on the little guy. It is because of those increases in productivity that blue collar workers in the US can afford things like console gaming systems, reliable cars, big computer monitors, musical instruments, and a whole host of other things that make our lives more enjoyable - things that make our paychecks go further toward our entertainment, enlightenment, or whatever else we choose to pursue.
So you may be right, we may become a smaller fish relative to the other fish in the pond. We may not even be the biggest fish for a whole lot longer. But if the experience with Japan is any guide, we while our relative size may diminish, our absolute size will increase. If your goal is to be better than everyone else, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. If your goal is to be better than you were yesterday, then you are on the right path. This is the path I would like to see our nation take.
I think we all know what really motivated this editorial. It's so obvious as to be as blinding as the blue LEDs he pretends are so bad. He is clearly afraid of tackling the true evil in the world. I'm talking, of course, about the two truly evil consumer products. Products so vile and twisted that one barely should speak their name. I'm speaking, of course, of Saran Wrap and packing tape.
There. I've said it. We all know about it, but we all blithely wander through our days pretending these products weren't spawned from a twisted and sociopathic mind. Have you ever tried to use one of these products? The instant a section of either of these clear plastic "miracles of modern technology" comes away from it's little cardboard spool and tiny metal teeth (don't get me started on those sweater-eating life-ruiners), it becomes a slithering cellophane serpent, bent on destruction; maliciously bent on one brief instant of contact with itself. One tiny touch and it bonds to itself with a monomaniacal intensity rivalled only by Madonna's attempts to remain relevant to teenagers.
What a weight off my mind. I simply couldn't stand the way we all ignore this problem any longer. I've kept this bottled up inside me for so long, I had forgotten what it feels like to think about anything else. I feel... so... free! You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to go to the supermarket, get the biggest bag of Kett'l Kook'd potato chips they have, and continue my hunt for the elusive potato chip that looks like Vincent Price.
Hey if you're gonna die soon (no I'm no trying to be morbid) and you have wishes to be cremated, why not do it this way?
.2 pounds and 100 participants.
I was thinking the same thing, but the cost is prohibitive. Apparently cremated human remains weigh between 4 and 10 pounds, meaning you could only get about 3 people in the capsule. $2 million a pop isn't the right price.
Of course, there may be more than just carbon left after the mere 1500 degrees in a standard crematorium. If a serious industrial incinerator could get the weight down to around one third of a pound (doubtful, we are carbon based after all), then it'd be a goer - $100,000 is definitely within the reach of 60 people within the 15 month delay till it flies.
Of course, the families would want insurance, and that'd jack the price back up. Maybe you shoot for