Because you state it, does not make it so. I know very few mac users using safari. I don't think safari has anywhere close to 90% of the browser marketshare on macs, if you do, cite source.
I believe your agreement specifies that disputes are to be handled in the court of their locality, so they can just file a small claims case, you wont show up, they win by default. Relatively inexpensive for them to handle.
A google beta is different from a normal product beta in one important respect: even in beta they derive income from it. There is, in fact, very few compelling reasons for google to take something out of beta.
It's not the same at all as a beta which you dont not derive income from until it ships.
The right thing to do about roe v wade is not to hope for a court that upholds it, but rather to make explicit the implicit. Fight for a constitutional ammendment making the right to privacy explicit, instead of relying on an implicit right which may or may not be maintained in the future.
Something can be an open standard while still being patented. MP3 is an ISO/IEC standard, and it is an open standard. It is not, however, an open format. PDF and RTF are not standards at all. Neither memory sticks nor sd are open standards (secure digital requires nda just to get standard).
"These things are way to specialized for the price they are demanding."
That's how things usually work, isn't it? If it has a limited potential market, the price has to be higher to cover development costs. Prices get reduced when production costs decline or the market increases.
You know those Barnes and Noble hardback classics? The ones that are often in the $6-$10 range? Dostoevsky, Melville, that kind of thing?
They are still making a profit on those!"
Basically you've proved that significant costs of book distribution are in the creative process of _creating_ the work, and not so much in distribution. Congrats.
If you want books that are currently in the public domain, they are available for free electronically, and you can read them on this device. That seems plenty cheap to me.
You can look at public domain books, to some degree anyways, as an example of the distribution costs of a book. If you are going to charge x, you can sell y if you dont have to pay the overhead of the author, editors, etc. I'm not sure why you'd expect this to extend to new books, though.
No, you are using the library as intended. Copying and republishing a book does not create a derived work either; that doesn't make it lawful, it just means it comes under the copying portion of copyright law, not the derived work portion.
I don't think it's that cut and dried, and I don't know of any case law on this (do you?). Copyright law says the following:
"A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ''derivative work''."
When you use a library as it is intended, you are not recasting, transforming, or adapting it, and thus are not creating a derived work in my view. I don't know if this has been tested in court, but I don't think it is as black and white as the fsf makes it out to be.
Let's say they are right, then you only have slightly more effort. You create an abstraction layer between an internal protocol and the library in question. The abstraction layer has to be gpled, but your code that links with it does not (since any headers your application makes use of are entirely owned by you, gpled or not).
The SEC exists to provide systematic investor confidence; iow, if I read a 10k, I should be assured transparency and that the claims it makes are accurate. Prosecuting violations of the law is vital to ensure this.
SEC actions should be transparent, so they should be announced. If a stock drops a massive amount due to this, than it's either a panic (which may be an opportunity) or the stock was priced for perfection, and probably unsustainable.
Either way, from a policy perspective it does not matter. The SEC is here to protect investors, not investors in the particular company they are invested in, but all investors, and by forcing companies to, I dunno, NOT FUCKING STEAL FROM US, they are increasing systematic confidence.
I know i'm far more likely to have confidence in the market when I know that a 10q or 10k is an accurate reflection of a companies financials.
Copyright is not how you address fraud; I believe there are already laws on the books to address that problem, and copyright is not among them. Misrepresenting yourself as the creator of a work in the public domain is not lawful, as far as I know.
Explain to me how opposing a government sanctioned monopoly = communism? It seems to me that lack of copyrights is a very capitalistic goal, as it lets the free market embrace, extend, and produce at progressively lower costs all works.
I personally think some limited form of copyright is helpful, but certainly it is not a capitalistic concept.
The original author of the software does not necessarily get changes in the GPL. You're required to provide source to your end users, and you cant prohibit them from passing source along to upstream, but there's no requirement whatsoever to make the source generally available.
This is hardly new, people have been paying for their hobbies for a very long time, either skill improvements (chess coaching, for example) to having to play for supplies and material for other leisure activities, like model airplane flying. I'm not sure what the big deal is here...
No, capitalism is merely an efficient way to allocate scarce resources. If products a, b, and c require the same productivity units to produce, how do you determine which to produce? The capitalistic answer to that is to see what consumers will pay for each product, and allocate resources towards the more profitable products. The opensource answer is to put your productivity units towards the products that the producers are most interested in producing.
I'd contend both of these produce very similar results, and are at their base not all that different. Paying yourself a high salary has little to do with capitalism, best as I can determine.
Opensource is, in reality, a very capitalistic system in the sense that demand (or popularity) of a project determines, to a large extent anyways, the supply of development cycles. Popular projects get developers, unpopular ones do not -- this is very capitalistic in nature.
However, the problem with opensource allocation of scarce resources (developers, artists, whatever) is that it is not keyed off demand directly, but off of what the developers, et al are interested in producing. There is a strong correlation between what they are interested in and the demand in the market place.
While imperfect, open source is probably closer to a true capitalist system than most economic systems, since it is pure. The only impurity (from a capitalist perspective) is the loose correlation of dev interest and consumer demand.
Although, one could argue that microsofts entire patent portfolio is ibm's fault. Yeah, that's right, the linux poster child. There was a time when microsoft's patent portfolio was around 0, but ibm forced them to reevaluate that strategy, and get into the defensive patent game.
Not all free software (let alone all open source software) is easy to read, nor well maintained. In many cases, it's just barely more readable than a disassembly.
Slashdot Mirror
Because you state it, does not make it so. I know very few mac users using safari. I don't think safari has anywhere close to 90% of the browser marketshare on macs, if you do, cite source.
Every mac user I know, including myself, either uses camino or firefox. What's your source for safari having 'monopoly-like share' of the os x market?
I believe your agreement specifies that disputes are to be handled in the court of their locality, so they can just file a small claims case, you wont show up, they win by default. Relatively inexpensive for them to handle.
A google beta is different from a normal product beta in one important respect: even in beta they derive income from it. There is, in fact, very few compelling reasons for google to take something out of beta.
It's not the same at all as a beta which you dont not derive income from until it ships.
The right thing to do about roe v wade is not to hope for a court that upholds it, but rather to make explicit the implicit. Fight for a constitutional ammendment making the right to privacy explicit, instead of relying on an implicit right which may or may not be maintained in the future.
Something can be an open standard while still being patented. MP3 is an ISO/IEC standard, and it is an open standard. It is not, however, an open format. PDF and RTF are not standards at all. Neither memory sticks nor sd are open standards (secure digital requires nda just to get standard).
"These things are way to specialized for the price they are demanding."
That's how things usually work, isn't it? If it has a limited potential market, the price has to be higher to cover development costs. Prices get reduced when production costs decline or the market increases.
"BOOKS are too expensive. New ones, anyway.
You know those Barnes and Noble hardback classics? The ones that are often in the $6-$10 range? Dostoevsky, Melville, that kind of thing?
They are still making a profit on those!"
Basically you've proved that significant costs of book distribution are in the creative process of _creating_ the work, and not so much in distribution. Congrats.
If you want books that are currently in the public domain, they are available for free electronically, and you can read them on this device. That seems plenty cheap to me.
You can look at public domain books, to some degree anyways, as an example of the distribution costs of a book. If you are going to charge x, you can sell y if you dont have to pay the overhead of the author, editors, etc. I'm not sure why you'd expect this to extend to new books, though.
"As for SunOS 5.x, which is more commonly refered to Solaris, is Sys V Rel 3 based."
No, sunos5 has always been based on svr4 as far as I know.
No, you are using the library as intended. Copying and republishing a book does not create a derived work either; that doesn't make it lawful, it just means it comes under the copying portion of copyright law, not the derived work portion.
I don't think it's that cut and dried, and I don't know of any case law on this (do you?). Copyright law says the following:
"A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ''derivative work''."
When you use a library as it is intended, you are not recasting, transforming, or adapting it, and thus are not creating a derived work in my view. I don't know if this has been tested in court, but I don't think it is as black and white as the fsf makes it out to be.
Let's say they are right, then you only have slightly more effort. You create an abstraction layer between an internal protocol and the library in question. The abstraction layer has to be gpled, but your code that links with it does not (since any headers your application makes use of are entirely owned by you, gpled or not).
If you have to convince them, it's not much of an inconvenience, now is it?
The SEC exists to provide systematic investor confidence; iow, if I read a 10k, I should be assured transparency and that the claims it makes are accurate. Prosecuting violations of the law is vital to ensure this.
SEC actions should be transparent, so they should be announced. If a stock drops a massive amount due to this, than it's either a panic (which may be an opportunity) or the stock was priced for perfection, and probably unsustainable.
Either way, from a policy perspective it does not matter. The SEC is here to protect investors, not investors in the particular company they are invested in, but all investors, and by forcing companies to, I dunno, NOT FUCKING STEAL FROM US, they are increasing systematic confidence.
I know i'm far more likely to have confidence in the market when I know that a 10q or 10k is an accurate reflection of a companies financials.
Full of proprietary drivers?
Copyright is not how you address fraud; I believe there are already laws on the books to address that problem, and copyright is not among them. Misrepresenting yourself as the creator of a work in the public domain is not lawful, as far as I know.
Explain to me how opposing a government sanctioned monopoly = communism? It seems to me that lack of copyrights is a very capitalistic goal, as it lets the free market embrace, extend, and produce at progressively lower costs all works.
I personally think some limited form of copyright is helpful, but certainly it is not a capitalistic concept.
A DRM gives them legal options, it's not a technical decision imo.
The original author of the software does not necessarily get changes in the GPL. You're required to provide source to your end users, and you cant prohibit them from passing source along to upstream, but there's no requirement whatsoever to make the source generally available.
This is hardly new, people have been paying for their hobbies for a very long time, either skill improvements (chess coaching, for example) to having to play for supplies and material for other leisure activities, like model airplane flying. I'm not sure what the big deal is here...
To equate giving wealth to your children, and giving wealth to the charitable foundations your children run is simply foolish.
No, capitalism is merely an efficient way to allocate scarce resources. If products a, b, and c require the same productivity units to produce, how do you determine which to produce? The capitalistic answer to that is to see what consumers will pay for each product, and allocate resources towards the more profitable products. The opensource answer is to put your productivity units towards the products that the producers are most interested in producing.
I'd contend both of these produce very similar results, and are at their base not all that different. Paying yourself a high salary has little to do with capitalism, best as I can determine.
Opensource is, in reality, a very capitalistic system in the sense that demand (or popularity) of a project determines, to a large extent anyways, the supply of development cycles. Popular projects get developers, unpopular ones do not -- this is very capitalistic in nature.
However, the problem with opensource allocation of scarce resources (developers, artists, whatever) is that it is not keyed off demand directly, but off of what the developers, et al are interested in producing. There is a strong correlation between what they are interested in and the demand in the market place.
While imperfect, open source is probably closer to a true capitalist system than most economic systems, since it is pure. The only impurity (from a capitalist perspective) is the loose correlation of dev interest and consumer demand.
Although, one could argue that microsofts entire patent portfolio is ibm's fault. Yeah, that's right, the linux poster child. There was a time when microsoft's patent portfolio was around 0, but ibm forced them to reevaluate that strategy, and get into the defensive patent game.
Of course, I'd also hate to become the stereotypical woman sitting at home eating bon bons, and watching Oprah. Ick, that just sounds horrible.
If you stayed home, you'd have time to raid more and aquire the really cool epic sets, though.
Not all free software (let alone all open source software) is easy to read, nor well maintained. In many cases, it's just barely more readable than a disassembly.