Next episode on the Internet tragedy: industry is asked first for DotName names. Why isn't there yet a "second" internet with geeks all over the world in charge of it's policies - solely for non-profit purposes?
In the announcement
of GNUPedia the following can be read about the exclusionary rule:
"... [hoevekam: the] most important rule for pages in the encyclopedia
is the exclusionary rule:
If a page on the web covers subject matter that ought to be in the
encyclopedia or the course library [hoevekam: an probably also in the article
library], but its license is too restricted to qualify, we must not make
links to it from encyclopedia articles or from courses."
Why is this the most important rule?
Let's look at a lesson learned form GPLed software. There was and still
is the danger of including non-GPLed code into GPLed code (as seen lately
in the discussions when QT was GPLed). I do agree with RMS, that this should
be avoided right from the beginning of working on an free encyclopedia.
This might look kind of paranoid today, but our kids will be grateful for
that. Or aren't you thankful that our parents began writing software from
scratch in order to put it into the realm of the GPL? Without starting
from zero, GPLed software would not be in the position it is right now.
Nupedia doesn't follow the exclusionary rule. This might be good for
now and for gaining momentum on a short time scale, but in the long run
RMS "exclusionary rule" will be the competitive edge. OK, it wouldn't take
Nupedia much to adapt to this rule once the number of articles has overcome
a certain thershold and they can link to other articles instead of citing
to non-GFDLed articles and books.
One shortcoming of using a mouse is in moving ones hand away from the keyboard and back. Taking information from a users gaze for cursor positioning seems to be a natural development. IBMs MAGIC is a step in the right direction but still suffers from the shortcoming mentioned above.
An alternative might be in using the head movement for the second step of the positioning. This two-step mechanism could be activated by a additional key (e.g. those ones on laptops beneath the space bar). Look here for further information about this idea.
The goal of patents is the generation of Synergy .
The inventor has to communicate every single aspect of his idea in the patent specififation - otherwise, he/she won't be granted the patent. Therefore, she/he obtains the sole right of financially profiting from her/his idea for the next 20 years.
The rest of the world can use the knowledge, manifested in the patent specification, to come up with new ideas, which eventually might lead to new inventions and an increase of the overall technical knowledge in the world
I do like the basic principle of the patent law very very much. Regardless, wether software patents are good or not, I could live with software patents if those 20 years would be reduced to a couple of years.
Anyways, everything that is state-of-the-art at the time a patent is filed can't be patented any more. Couldn't this be used by opponents of software patents to get rid of software patents? If everybody would publish her/his ideas on the internet this idea becomes part of the state-of-the-art immediately and can't be patented anymore;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Next episode on the Internet tragedy: industry is asked first for DotName names. Why isn't there yet a "second" internet with geeks all over the world in charge of it's policies - solely for non-profit purposes?
"... [hoevekam: the] most important rule for pages in the encyclopedia is the exclusionary rule:
If a page on the web covers subject matter that ought to be in the encyclopedia or the course library [hoevekam: an probably also in the article library], but its license is too restricted to qualify, we must not make links to it from encyclopedia articles or from courses."
Why is this the most important rule?
Let's look at a lesson learned form GPLed software. There was and still is the danger of including non-GPLed code into GPLed code (as seen lately in the discussions when QT was GPLed). I do agree with RMS, that this should be avoided right from the beginning of working on an free encyclopedia. This might look kind of paranoid today, but our kids will be grateful for that. Or aren't you thankful that our parents began writing software from scratch in order to put it into the realm of the GPL? Without starting from zero, GPLed software would not be in the position it is right now.
Nupedia doesn't follow the exclusionary rule. This might be good for now and for gaining momentum on a short time scale, but in the long run RMS "exclusionary rule" will be the competitive edge. OK, it wouldn't take Nupedia much to adapt to this rule once the number of articles has overcome a certain thershold and they can link to other articles instead of citing to non-GFDLed articles and books.
An alternative might be in using the head movement for the second step of the positioning. This two-step mechanism could be activated by a additional key (e.g. those ones on laptops beneath the space bar). Look here for further information about this idea.
I do like the basic principle of the patent law very very much. Regardless, wether software patents are good or not, I could live with software patents if those 20 years would be reduced to a couple of years.
Anyways, everything that is state-of-the-art at the time a patent is filed can't be patented any more. Couldn't this be used by opponents of software patents to get rid of software patents? If everybody would publish her/his ideas on the internet this idea becomes part of the state-of-the-art immediately and can't be patented anymore