If the license would say that you need to share your modifications, then that is what you agreed to. It can be unproductive, but that is not the issue. The issue is that you agreed to the license. I have offered the alternative: to negotiate a different license. Sure it means that you probably have to pay.
But you are a hypocrite if you take a free product, and demanding that the developer is using a less restrictive license. And you are more a hypocrite if you make up some arguments, like sharing your modifications is unproductive, the license the developer choose is "unacceptable", the license is "horrible", etc.
Of course real violence desensitizes people. No question in that.
But we are talking about virtual violence. That is completely different. Virtual violence, like video games, do not desensitizes people to real violence. Because that one is virtual and the other is real.
A horror movie will not desensitize you. A plane crash movie will not traumatize you.
A normal human can distinguish real stuff and virtual stuff really easy. That is why we can laugh at slaughter blood bath movies but are horrible shocked by a real massacre. Researchers (and politicians) tried to identify any connection between virtual stuff and real stuff for decades and come up empty. There is no reason to believe that there should by a connection.
Why should anyone apply the logic virtual -> real. There is no evidence on that. Look at a horror movie or a catastrophe movie, like an air plane crash movie. Then compare your reaction to the movie and reactions from air plane survivors. There is no comparison. The one group is slightly entertained, the other group is shocked for life.
With virtual stuff you are totally disconnected. Because you know it is not real. You are not think: a headshot of the person. No, you are thinking: a shot of a player. Virtual and real are totally disconnected.
PS: that is why drone strikes are so dangerous and inhumane. The operator is totally disconnected from reality and can do horrible things.
The use of the BerkeleyDB do not put any restrictions on your software, as long as you do not statically link it. A database connection is not covered by the GPL or AGPL and do not make it a derivative work. As long as you use, for example Debian, you already comply with the AGPL license, because Debian distribute the sources already.
What a hypocrite you are. Why aren't you build your own forum software, why are you getting a free ride? Or, if you lack skill or time, why aren't you buy a proprietary license from the developers of PHPBB?
If your modifications are useless to anyone else then there is no risk and no argument to release them. Just drop your code to Gibhub and be done. You could have an argument 20 years ego, when you have do mail CDs or Floppies to anyone ask for them, but today sharing code have zero costs and takes maybe 5 minutes of your time.
> Basically, AGPL is only useful for a very, very narrow range of software designed specifically....
You know, you are an ass. It's up to the software developer to decide what license is best for their project. If you don't like the license, you are free to negotiate a different license. How about a little email to the developers of PHPBB:
Dear Developers, I'm a small software developer myself, and I can't release my modifications, because I'm a lazy ass. How about 50$ and a case of beer for a proprietary license? Regards.
As far as I know that is the only real data on the issue. The conclusion of the "game" is quite surprising: no patents actually performs better then patents. Both in amount of innovation and the whole wealth.
The other data I have is on copyright. Germany had in fact for 100 years no copyright laws, the first laws were introduced in 1837, well after the laws in England in 1710. In that period of time Germany had a booming book industry, with many more books and much more cheaper then in England. If you know history, then that was also the "Golden Age" of Germany, with many discoveries, political, literature, etc. innovations. After the copyright laws were introduced the total amount of books goes down, prices goes up.
My opinion is: patents yes, but only for real innovations and limited. Copyrights: yes, but extreme limited and only after registration. Basically, my opinion is in agreement with the founding fathers of the USA.
> It was interesting to see the guy's theory about patents, without checking his numbers.
I don't know what should be interesting about someone's theories. Anyone can have theories. What is interesting is the numbers, the evidence. The same as the Geocentric theory. It's a nice theory but it is totally wrong. That is why I'm so negative about him. If he would have some numbers to back up his theory I would praise him.
That is also why I'm so negative about almost all economists. Hard evidence in a complex world economy is very hard to get but it don't stop economists from postulating theories. It wouldn't be so bad if not for the politicians that then pick one theory that serves their agenda and then with the help of the economists push that agenda.
There was a recent example with Reinhart and Rogoff. Here is their paper: Growth in a Time of Debt From the National Bureau of Economic Growth.
When external debt reaches 60 percent of GDP, annual growth declines by about two percent; for higher levels, growth rates are roughly cut in half.
Any real scientists would lose any creditability, but not so economists. I guess Reinhart and Rogoff are still call them self economists and they are still used by politicians to push policy.
Because it is trivial to update the kernel. You install a new system, you get a new kernel. On Fedora a kernel updates every 3 weeks. Compare that with the difficulties to update the BIOS. Also a Bug in the kernel will only affect the current system, not the whole computer. I think most people do not update the BIOS at all for the whole lifetime of the computer.
Or you can have a BIOS that addresses the decades of accumulated legacy bodging that is the PC, without UEFI. Just put a BIOS that removes all the old cruft of the old BIOS, adds some new features, but is totally minimalistic.
Because in 10 or 20 years UEFI will be like the old BIOS. It will do totally old stuff that nobody wants, and it will not allow new stuff, because of the same reasons of the that the old BIOS have.
I do. I am not find UEFI a "cool tech". I find UEFI the same as the old BIOS: totally useless. When a computer starts it should just bring up the very basic stuff and then handle the boot process to the Operating System. Nothing more. The computer should stay in a state of the BIOS for about 500ms (the quicker the better) after that the Kernel of the System takes over.
Please tell me what I get with UEFI what the current Linux Kernel does not offer.
Now Alpha Centauri was a really good game. I wish I would see innovations like in AC instead the x remake of the same game. AC had:
* real 3D map * real atmosphere and a good story * innovated combat system * innovated diplomacy * and in my opinion way better game then Civ III and the remakes (Civ IV, etc).
The purpose of patent law is to foster innovation and encourage discloser of inventions. There is no evidence that patent law actually is fostering innovation and at least with software patents there is no discloser, because software patents are so broad or they cover mathematics.
> Would they research just to look good?
Companies invest in R&D because of market pressure. If one company fails to innovate it will be out-innovated by a competing company. It's funny how some people want free market but at the same time apologize for patents. But patent law does something good here: it encourage discloser of innovations. In my opinion by no means we should abolish all patents. But you need to base patent law on evidence, like everything else. And you need to articulate the goals of patent law for the market.
There is no 1:1 relationship between taxes and government budget as TFA have implied. There are many factors and in my opinion, taxes are the least significant. For example, taxes spend on military toys and military bases around the world will not increase the GDP. But taxes spend on education, infrastructure and R&D will increase the GDP. So it is much more less how much taxes you get, but much more important is what you spend the taxes on. You could get 99% tax if you spend that tax money fully in your economy it will increase the government budget over time.
On Linux I just update to the new and shiny new Fedora, Ubuntu or Debian. Zero costs and I get new software versions with added features or fixed bugs. So I don't really understand why it is to update from Windows XP to Windows 7 is such an issue.
No one said it was "better"? The W3C said so, that EME will eliminate proprietary plugins like Flash and Silverlight. The proponents of EME are all that the EME is somehow necessary despite the fact that Flash and Silverlight are dying out.
No. The whole point of the EME proposed standard is to standardize access to the Content Decryption Modules (CDMs). You can think of the CDMs as a Flash or Silverlight plugin.
If anything, with EME the CDMs will be buried in your system even deeper. For example, Netflix will offer the CDM as a system component, like a driver. Via EME Firefox, Chrome, Safari, et al. can then access the CDM to decrypt and show the "premium" content.
So if you are opposing DRM or proprietary software on your computer, then EME will make it worse not better.
Because the whole point of the W3C is to make the web more accessible by forging out standards. Like you don't need to install a Jpeg or Png* plugin for Firefox.
By adopting a standard that relies on vendor specific Content Decryption Modules (CDMs) the EME "standard" is not better then a Flash pugin. It does not improve the open web. It actually integrated the status quo in the web and gets the blessing of the W3C. The status quo in this case is that you need to have a binary proprietary patent infected plugin in order to enjoy "premium" content.
If everyone would embrace that DRM is evil and violets your rights then we would accomplish what we want. Netflix and Hollywood is just a tiny minority, and they are still a tiny minority on the Open Web.
But politicians and the W3C sucking up to Hollywood and to all the lobbying groups that spend Millions of dollars to push for harder punishments and stricter copyright. And it will not end at your videos, music and ebooks. I'm talking about fundamental rights, like property rights, re-sale rights, freedom of speech, privacy rights.
If DRM and copyright would all about videos from Netflix I wouldn't care at the least. But the Hollywood, MAFIA, RIAA lobby is like a forest fire that will burn everything to the ground to maximize profits for a few groups.
Bullshit. The W3C "standard" is only a plugin API. The EME is tied to vendor provided Content Decryption Modules (CDMs). The standard does not specify the CDMs at all. It's a black box with "do as you like" label.
So even if the web content is using EME it does not mean at all that you can watch the content in your web browser. Just like you cannot watch Flash content without Flash, you will not be able to watch content without the vendor CDM.
Not only that. The curve implies relationship where there could be none. There is no evidence at all that patent laws increase innovation. There is some evidence that too strong patent protection hamper innovation, and there is empirical evidence that no patent protection actually is better for innovation. But there is no evidence that patent protection fosters innovation.
> If you invest something into research and then give away its results for free, would you do more research?
Have nothing to do with patents. Patent law does now specify how you monetize or how you are compensated for your research. For example a university is funded by public money and by tuitions. A private company have capital, whereas a public company sells shares.
> My personal opinion is that exclusive rights are actually beyond the maximum innovation point and where the curve starts descending
What curve? There is no curve. There is no evidence for a curve. There could be that patents have actually no relationship with innovations.
Oh super we have two points. From two point you can imagine infinite forms of graphs. Which is what Wikipedia basically says.
> That there should be a similar curve for patents seems reasonable.
That is an opinion. I tent to disagree.
> After all the Industrial Revolution didn't really take off until after the Brits adopted a patent system.
Where did you get your history from? The Statute of Monopolies was passed on 25 May 1624 in the UK. The Industrial Revolution happen between 1760 to some time between 1820 and 1840. Patents were recognized in the UK for 100 years before the Industrial Revolution.
Slashdot Mirror
If the license would say that you need to share your modifications, then that is what you agreed to.
It can be unproductive, but that is not the issue. The issue is that you agreed to the license.
I have offered the alternative: to negotiate a different license. Sure it means that you probably have to pay.
But you are a hypocrite if you take a free product, and demanding that the developer is using a less restrictive license.
And you are more a hypocrite if you make up some arguments, like sharing your modifications is unproductive, the license the developer choose is "unacceptable", the license is "horrible", etc.
Of course real violence desensitizes people. No question in that.
But we are talking about virtual violence. That is completely different.
Virtual violence, like video games, do not desensitizes people to real violence. Because that one is virtual and the other is real.
A horror movie will not desensitize you. A plane crash movie will not traumatize you.
A normal human can distinguish real stuff and virtual stuff really easy. That is why we can laugh at slaughter blood bath movies but are horrible shocked by a real massacre. Researchers (and politicians) tried to identify any connection between virtual stuff and real stuff for decades and come up empty. There is no reason to believe that there should by a connection.
Why should anyone apply the logic virtual -> real. There is no evidence on that.
Look at a horror movie or a catastrophe movie, like an air plane crash movie. Then compare your reaction to the movie and reactions from air plane survivors. There is no comparison. The one group is slightly entertained, the other group is shocked for life.
With virtual stuff you are totally disconnected. Because you know it is not real. You are not think: a headshot of the person. No, you are thinking: a shot of a player. Virtual and real are totally disconnected.
PS: that is why drone strikes are so dangerous and inhumane. The operator is totally disconnected from reality and can do horrible things.
Yes just ignore the other freedoms.
The use of the BerkeleyDB do not put any restrictions on your software, as long as you do not statically link it.
A database connection is not covered by the GPL or AGPL and do not make it a derivative work.
As long as you use, for example Debian, you already comply with the AGPL license, because Debian distribute the sources already.
What a hypocrite you are. Why aren't you build your own forum software, why are you getting a free ride?
Or, if you lack skill or time, why aren't you buy a proprietary license from the developers of PHPBB?
If your modifications are useless to anyone else then there is no risk and no argument to release them. Just drop your code to Gibhub and be done. You could have an argument 20 years ego, when you have do mail CDs or Floppies to anyone ask for them, but today sharing code have zero costs and takes maybe 5 minutes of your time.
> Basically, AGPL is only useful for a very, very narrow range of software designed specifically ....
You know, you are an ass. It's up to the software developer to decide what license is best for their project.
If you don't like the license, you are free to negotiate a different license.
How about a little email to the developers of PHPBB:
Dear Developers,
I'm a small software developer myself, and I can't release my modifications, because I'm a lazy ass.
How about 50$ and a case of beer for a proprietary license?
Regards.
The only real data I ever saw is the Patent Game experiment. I already mentioned that but I post here again:
http://www.patentgame.net/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1Pi4w8ddA8
As far as I know that is the only real data on the issue. The conclusion of the "game" is quite surprising: no patents actually performs better then patents. Both in amount of innovation and the whole wealth.
The other data I have is on copyright. Germany had in fact for 100 years no copyright laws, the first laws were introduced in 1837, well after the laws in England in 1710. In that period of time Germany had a booming book industry, with many more books and much more cheaper then in England. If you know history, then that was also the "Golden Age" of Germany, with many discoveries, political, literature, etc. innovations. After the copyright laws were introduced the total amount of books goes down, prices goes up.
You can read it up (in German):
http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/33/33092/1.html
My opinion is: patents yes, but only for real innovations and limited.
Copyrights: yes, but extreme limited and only after registration.
Basically, my opinion is in agreement with the founding fathers of the USA.
> It was interesting to see the guy's theory about patents, without checking his numbers.
I don't know what should be interesting about someone's theories. Anyone can have theories. What is interesting is the numbers, the evidence. The same as the Geocentric theory. It's a nice theory but it is totally wrong. That is why I'm so negative about him. If he would have some numbers to back up his theory I would praise him.
That is also why I'm so negative about almost all economists. Hard evidence in a complex world economy is very hard to get but it don't stop economists from postulating theories. It wouldn't be so bad if not for the politicians that then pick one theory that serves their agenda and then with the help of the economists push that agenda.
There was a recent example with Reinhart and Rogoff.
Here is their paper: Growth in a Time of Debt
From the National Bureau of Economic Growth.
When external debt reaches 60 percent of GDP, annual growth declines by about two percent; for higher levels, growth rates are roughly cut in half.
Nice claims no? Problem is, the data is completely bonkus. See Reinhart And Rogoff's Pro-Austerity Research Now Even More Thoroughly Debunked By Studies
Any real scientists would lose any creditability, but not so economists. I guess Reinhart and Rogoff are still call them self economists and they are still used by politicians to push policy.
Because it is trivial to update the kernel. You install a new system, you get a new kernel. On Fedora a kernel updates every 3 weeks.
Compare that with the difficulties to update the BIOS. Also a Bug in the kernel will only affect the current system, not the whole computer. I think most people do not update the BIOS at all for the whole lifetime of the computer.
Or you can have a BIOS that addresses the decades of accumulated legacy bodging that is the PC, without UEFI.
Just put a BIOS that removes all the old cruft of the old BIOS, adds some new features, but is totally minimalistic.
Because in 10 or 20 years UEFI will be like the old BIOS. It will do totally old stuff that nobody wants, and it will not allow new stuff, because of the same reasons of the that the old BIOS have.
The only remedy is to have a totally minimalistic BIOS that puts control as fast as possible to the System kernel.
We had "Secure Boot" stuff for Linux for a long time before Secure Boot.
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Tboot
http://sourceforge.net/projects/tboot/
I do. I am not find UEFI a "cool tech". I find UEFI the same as the old BIOS: totally useless.
When a computer starts it should just bring up the very basic stuff and then handle the boot process to the Operating System. Nothing more. The computer should stay in a state of the BIOS for about 500ms (the quicker the better) after that the Kernel of the System takes over.
Please tell me what I get with UEFI what the current Linux Kernel does not offer.
> In other words, Windows Certification actually protects your rights.
Only because it's currently in Microsoft's interests.
And that come from the anri-competition fines from the EU.
So you should thank the European Commission.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case
Now Alpha Centauri was a really good game. I wish I would see innovations like in AC instead the x remake of the same game.
AC had:
* real 3D map
* real atmosphere and a good story
* innovated combat system
* innovated diplomacy
* and in my opinion way better game then Civ III and the remakes (Civ IV, etc).
> I was referring to their purpose
The purpose of patent law is to foster innovation and encourage discloser of inventions.
There is no evidence that patent law actually is fostering innovation and at least with software patents there is no discloser, because software patents are so broad or they cover mathematics.
> Would they research just to look good?
Companies invest in R&D because of market pressure. If one company fails to innovate it will be out-innovated by a competing company. It's funny how some people want free market but at the same time apologize for patents. But patent law does something good here: it encourage discloser of innovations. In my opinion by no means we should abolish all patents. But you need to base patent law on evidence, like everything else. And you need to articulate the goals of patent law for the market.
There is no 1:1 relationship between taxes and government budget as TFA have implied. There are many factors and in my opinion, taxes are the least significant. For example, taxes spend on military toys and military bases around the world will not increase the GDP. But taxes spend on education, infrastructure and R&D will increase the GDP. So it is much more less how much taxes you get, but much more important is what you spend the taxes on. You could get 99% tax if you spend that tax money fully in your economy it will increase the government budget over time.
On Linux I just update to the new and shiny new Fedora, Ubuntu or Debian. Zero costs and I get new software versions with added features or fixed bugs. So I don't really understand why it is to update from Windows XP to Windows 7 is such an issue.
No one said it was "better"? The W3C said so, that EME will eliminate proprietary plugins like Flash and Silverlight.
The proponents of EME are all that the EME is somehow necessary despite the fact that Flash and Silverlight are dying out.
No. The whole point of the EME proposed standard is to standardize access to the Content Decryption Modules (CDMs). You can think of the CDMs as a Flash or Silverlight plugin.
If anything, with EME the CDMs will be buried in your system even deeper. For example, Netflix will offer the CDM as a system component, like a driver. Via EME Firefox, Chrome, Safari, et al. can then access the CDM to decrypt and show the "premium" content.
So if you are opposing DRM or proprietary software on your computer, then EME will make it worse not better.
Because the whole point of the W3C is to make the web more accessible by forging out standards.
Like you don't need to install a Jpeg or Png* plugin for Firefox.
By adopting a standard that relies on vendor specific Content Decryption Modules (CDMs) the EME "standard" is not better then a Flash pugin. It does not improve the open web. It actually integrated the status quo in the web and gets the blessing of the W3C. The status quo in this case is that you need to have a binary proprietary patent infected plugin in order to enjoy "premium" content.
*Png http://www.w3.org/Graphics/PNG/
*Jpeg http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/
Just like Flash and Silverlight?
So why it gets the blessing of the W3C that are suppose to work for the advancement of the Open Web?
Call me again when Netflix is offering a CDM for Linux.
> And stop foaming at the mouth.
I call bullshit if I see it.
If everyone would embrace that DRM is evil and violets your rights then we would accomplish what we want. Netflix and Hollywood is just a tiny minority, and they are still a tiny minority on the Open Web.
But politicians and the W3C sucking up to Hollywood and to all the lobbying groups that spend Millions of dollars to push for harder punishments and stricter copyright. And it will not end at your videos, music and ebooks. I'm talking about fundamental rights, like property rights, re-sale rights, freedom of speech, privacy rights.
If DRM and copyright would all about videos from Netflix I wouldn't care at the least. But the Hollywood, MAFIA, RIAA lobby is like a forest fire that will burn everything to the ground to maximize profits for a few groups.
Bullshit. The W3C "standard" is only a plugin API.
The EME is tied to vendor provided Content Decryption Modules (CDMs). The standard does not specify the CDMs at all. It's a black box with "do as you like" label.
So even if the web content is using EME it does not mean at all that you can watch the content in your web browser. Just like you cannot watch Flash content without Flash, you will not be able to watch content without the vendor CDM.
Please tell me how Firefox will ship a patent laden and proprietary DRM plugins?
For that matter, also Chromium (open source Chrome)?
Not only that. The curve implies relationship where there could be none.
There is no evidence at all that patent laws increase innovation. There is some evidence that too strong patent protection hamper innovation, and there is empirical evidence that no patent protection actually is better for innovation. But there is no evidence that patent protection fosters innovation.
> If you invest something into research and then give away its results for free, would you do more research?
Have nothing to do with patents.
Patent law does now specify how you monetize or how you are compensated for your research.
For example a university is funded by public money and by tuitions. A private company have capital, whereas a public company sells shares.
> My personal opinion is that exclusive rights are actually beyond the maximum innovation point and where the curve starts descending
What curve? There is no curve. There is no evidence for a curve.
There could be that patents have actually no relationship with innovations.
Oh super we have two points. From two point you can imagine infinite forms of graphs. Which is what Wikipedia basically says.
> That there should be a similar curve for patents seems reasonable.
That is an opinion. I tent to disagree.
> After all the Industrial Revolution didn't really take off until after the Brits adopted a patent system.
Where did you get your history from?
The Statute of Monopolies was passed on 25 May 1624 in the UK. The Industrial Revolution happen between 1760 to some time between 1820 and 1840. Patents were recognized in the UK for 100 years before the Industrial Revolution.