Ephemera is actually highly valued by archivists. The stuff that is so common that people don't think it's worth preserving is what gives historians the greatest insight into daily life.
It's the same problem you see with collectibles. The stuff that everyone had and threw away is what becomes a highly valuable collectible. Items that are marketed as collectibles end up having no value since everyone keeps them.
The original Xbox hasn't even been emulated yet. You'd think it would be relatively easy, it being pretty much a P3 computer. Just no one seems to care.
Hell, how do you even preserve something like WoW?
How do you even preserve something like Woodstock? You can't. You can take all the recordings you like, but the experience of being there is ephemeral.
The license agreement in question is a service license, not a software license.
As long as the VLC developers don't use the service, thy cannot be held to any service license.
As such, even though this is 100% free of Nullsoft code, it conforms to Nullsoft's specifications (as if it didn't, it would be unable to interact with the SHOUTcast Directory server), and is thus supposedly covered under the SHOUTcast Directory Service License, as the software uses the service.
This of course is a complete and utter overreach on the part of AOL. If such an interpretation of the law had a chance in hell of prevailing in court, Microsoft would have put an end to WINE years ago.
Just another case of a large corporation abusing copyright law to bully small developers.
If that's the case, they never should have incorporated the non-open source module into a GPL project in the first place. I kind of doubt that's the case, but I'd be very interested in learning where the code in question actually came from.
This is an issue of the authors of some code demanding "adhere to our license or get rid of our code". Which I think everyone can understand the need to honor, if just as a matter of "do unto others, or else".
If this was an issue of getting rid of AOLs code, the VLC team could just reimplement it. This sounds more like a case of AOL asserting that they own copyright over the shoutcast API, and so any non-licensed implementation is infringing. This is a dubious interpretation of the law at best, but it would cost too much for VLC to take it to court.
Open source software needs to set an example by respecting the licenses under which code is provided. Otherwise, we have no moral authority
You assume that those licenses have moral authority in the first place. It's not clear here that AOL wrote any of the code incorporated in VideoLan, so any moral authority they may assert is questionable.
The biggest driver in car design since the oil crises of the 70's has been miles per gallon.
Then explain SUVs. There has been a lot of work on aerodynamics and engine efficiency, but the result of that work hasn't been to reduce MPG until recently. It's been to make bigger vehicles.
That's a software problem, not a hardware problem. And to the extent that it can be blamed on hardware, there's better hardware available to fix it. Multiple cores enable you to do many things at once without slowing any of them down to an appreciable extent. SSDs allow you to drastically reduce load times for your applications. But in the end, if you want a responsive system you need to use software that's designed for responsiveness.
The exit node might know that there's an SSL connection going through his computer that terminates at wikileaks. If everything is configured properly he should be unable to determine where that SSL connection originated.
Lethal injection as it's done is ridiculous. 3 drug cocktail, a sedative(barbituate), paralytic, and then the heart stopper. You really only need one. When i was humanely putting down rats for research purposes we just used a large overdose of barbituate. Inject 5x the lethal dose intraperitoneally. No fumbling about for a vein, they stop breathing in under a minute, and are gone in a couple more. There's no reason lethal injection has to be this complicated procedure.
You know, if you're dissatisfied with today's games I'm sure there's a metric shitton of old games you haven't played. Why not pick up a Turbografx-16 and see what you missed.
You'd be surprised at how hardcore some of those tetris players are. TGM players for instance are just as insane as shmup fanatics or street fighter experts.
I do oppose embryonic stem cell research, because it creates a demand for dead babies
Nope, it creates a demand for live cells. A stem cell is just as alive and capable of producing a full human being as a fertilized embryo. Using those embryos keeps those cells alive. So if you have a problem with the destruction of embryos you should be for the use of stem cells.
Well, why not? We harvest actual life forms for tissue all the time. I call it dinner.
Harvesting tissue from life forms only becomes wrong when it's cruel. Given that a frozen IVF embryo can't feel anything, it's impossible to be cruel to it, and so it's impossible for using the tissue to be wrong.
You should be more concerned about the morality of factory farming, which puts actual feeling beings through suffering. The fate of a lump of cells in a dish is absolutely nothing to be worried about.
Your son is a person now. He was not a person when he was a blastocyst. Persons have brains. They have thoughts and feelings. A lump of cells does not. If you cannot see the difference between a blastocyst and a baby, that's your own mental hangup which has nothing to do with reality.
Someone else took that, re-wrote (apparently significant) portions and released it with a different name. THAT PERSON then sold it to a company, who then decided to bundle a bunch of for-pay stuff with it.
Had this been GPL, the person who rewrote significant portions of the software would have to have released his derivative works as GPL. He could have sold his portion of the software under any license, but the work as a whole would have to be GPL. The company that bought the rights to the software would have to remove any GPL portion, or release the entire thing (including proprietary addons) under GPL.
I don't see how that's a counter example. You evidently don't want to pirate, you want to rent. The best course of action for the publishers is not to stop you from pirating, but to provide opportunities for rental. This is completely consistent with my statement above.
Slashdot Mirror
Ephemera is actually highly valued by archivists. The stuff that is so common that people don't think it's worth preserving is what gives historians the greatest insight into daily life.
It's the same problem you see with collectibles. The stuff that everyone had and threw away is what becomes a highly valuable collectible. Items that are marketed as collectibles end up having no value since everyone keeps them.
The original Xbox hasn't even been emulated yet. You'd think it would be relatively easy, it being pretty much a P3 computer. Just no one seems to care.
Not every port has to be enhanced. Playing Chocolate Doom on Linux is much closer to the original experience than playing the DOS port on Dosbox.
Hell, how do you even preserve something like WoW?
How do you even preserve something like Woodstock? You can't. You can take all the recordings you like, but the experience of being there is ephemeral.
The license agreement in question is a service license, not a software license.
As long as the VLC developers don't use the service, thy cannot be held to any service license.
As such, even though this is 100% free of Nullsoft code, it conforms to Nullsoft's specifications (as if it didn't, it would be unable to interact with the SHOUTcast Directory server), and is thus supposedly covered under the SHOUTcast Directory Service License, as the software uses the service.
This of course is a complete and utter overreach on the part of AOL. If such an interpretation of the law had a chance in hell of prevailing in court, Microsoft would have put an end to WINE years ago.
Just another case of a large corporation abusing copyright law to bully small developers.
In the case of twitter, it's more like a swamp.
Its like a blog, but short.
So it's like a blog, but without the opportunity for in depth information.
It's like an SMS message, but not necessarily directed at a particular person.
So it's like an SMS, but with nothing I personally need to know.
It's like an IM status, but not tied to IM.
So it's like an IM, but... aw hell, IM sucks too.
If that's the case, they never should have incorporated the non-open source module into a GPL project in the first place. I kind of doubt that's the case, but I'd be very interested in learning where the code in question actually came from.
This is an issue of the authors of some code demanding "adhere to our license or get rid of our code". Which I think everyone can understand the need to honor, if just as a matter of "do unto others, or else".
If this was an issue of getting rid of AOLs code, the VLC team could just reimplement it. This sounds more like a case of AOL asserting that they own copyright over the shoutcast API, and so any non-licensed implementation is infringing. This is a dubious interpretation of the law at best, but it would cost too much for VLC to take it to court.
Open source software needs to set an example by respecting the licenses under which code is provided. Otherwise, we have no moral authority
You assume that those licenses have moral authority in the first place. It's not clear here that AOL wrote any of the code incorporated in VideoLan, so any moral authority they may assert is questionable.
The biggest driver in car design since the oil crises of the 70's has been miles per gallon.
Then explain SUVs. There has been a lot of work on aerodynamics and engine efficiency, but the result of that work hasn't been to reduce MPG until recently. It's been to make bigger vehicles.
That's a software problem, not a hardware problem. And to the extent that it can be blamed on hardware, there's better hardware available to fix it. Multiple cores enable you to do many things at once without slowing any of them down to an appreciable extent. SSDs allow you to drastically reduce load times for your applications. But in the end, if you want a responsive system you need to use software that's designed for responsiveness.
The exit node might know that there's an SSL connection going through his computer that terminates at wikileaks. If everything is configured properly he should be unable to determine where that SSL connection originated.
Lethal injection as it's done is ridiculous. 3 drug cocktail, a sedative(barbituate), paralytic, and then the heart stopper. You really only need one. When i was humanely putting down rats for research purposes we just used a large overdose of barbituate. Inject 5x the lethal dose intraperitoneally. No fumbling about for a vein, they stop breathing in under a minute, and are gone in a couple more. There's no reason lethal injection has to be this complicated procedure.
This is not dogma, it's truth and history: Every time security is embraced, liberty IS sacrificed.
No no no, this is all wrong. Liberty IS security. Every bit of liberty we lose decreases our security against tyrannical goverment.
You know, if you're dissatisfied with today's games I'm sure there's a metric shitton of old games you haven't played. Why not pick up a Turbografx-16 and see what you missed.
You'd be surprised at how hardcore some of those tetris players are. TGM players for instance are just as insane as shmup fanatics or street fighter experts.
Is that a problem? Sounds to me that the market is setting a fair price for work that even an amateur can do.
I do oppose embryonic stem cell research, because it creates a demand for dead babies
Nope, it creates a demand for live cells. A stem cell is just as alive and capable of producing a full human being as a fertilized embryo. Using those embryos keeps those cells alive. So if you have a problem with the destruction of embryos you should be for the use of stem cells.
you should not compel opponents to fund what they actively believe is murder.
As long as I have to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the religious nutbars should have to fund scientific exploration.
Well, why not? We harvest actual life forms for tissue all the time. I call it dinner.
Harvesting tissue from life forms only becomes wrong when it's cruel. Given that a frozen IVF embryo can't feel anything, it's impossible to be cruel to it, and so it's impossible for using the tissue to be wrong.
You should be more concerned about the morality of factory farming, which puts actual feeling beings through suffering. The fate of a lump of cells in a dish is absolutely nothing to be worried about.
Your son is a person now. He was not a person when he was a blastocyst. Persons have brains. They have thoughts and feelings. A lump of cells does not. If you cannot see the difference between a blastocyst and a baby, that's your own mental hangup which has nothing to do with reality.
Embryos ARE just harvestable tissue.
Someone else took that, re-wrote (apparently significant) portions and released it with a different name. THAT PERSON then sold it to a company, who then decided to bundle a bunch of for-pay stuff with it.
Had this been GPL, the person who rewrote significant portions of the software would have to have released his derivative works as GPL. He could have sold his portion of the software under any license, but the work as a whole would have to be GPL. The company that bought the rights to the software would have to remove any GPL portion, or release the entire thing (including proprietary addons) under GPL.
I don't see how that's a counter example. You evidently don't want to pirate, you want to rent. The best course of action for the publishers is not to stop you from pirating, but to provide opportunities for rental. This is completely consistent with my statement above.