But another factor is the moral or ethical obligation. If you feel the law is immoral, or wrong, you may personally feel an obligation to break the law, but preserve the "spirit" of the law in supporting the actual artist.
There might be some merit to the argument that the RIAA etc bring a small contribution to the table in marketing and advertising, but the outcome isn't moral at all.
A fair system would accord the record companies a FIXED portion of revenues to cover expenses. Then there would be a "return on investment" portion, not to exceed 15%/annum overall. All additional profits would go to the artist. That would mean that at first, the music company would take a higher %'age of the profit, but later (more sales) the artist would take greater and greater percentages.
If you've read "The Software Conspiracy" from Mark Minasi, you'll be enlightened about software design, and our expectations.
What I think many miss is that BUGS = INSECURITY! and also MORE CODE = Exponentially MORE BUGS.
To make a more secure and less bug prone system, we need to limit the code size.
From Firewalls and Internet Security (the God book of security IMHO) - All programs are bugy - Large programs are even buggier than their size would indicate. - If you do not run a program, it does not matter whether or not it is buggy. - Exposed machines should run as few programs as possible; the ones that are run should be as small as possible.
This all applies to security, but in a more general sense, it applies to reliable code.
(I'm a lousy coder in general...) Sure, I can create cool IDEAS, and impliment them, though in a crude but working manner. But, when you want to maintain my code, it's not so pretty. Since 9/10th's of a project is maintain and extend, the real cost of my code comes after I've written it. Thus, someone that has COOL ideas paired with someone that has AWESOME coding skills is a real marriage made in heaven.
Successful coders DO write the most efficient code. Probably not the most efficient POSSIBLE, but really efficient. If you don't start there, by the time the project is extended, and maintained, you've got a massive mess. (Believe me, I know!)
The best programmers make a balance between perfect technical code, and actually finishing a project. If you slap it all together, and "just get the project done..." the result is sucky code, and really sucky extendability and maintainability. If they work too hard on technically wonderful code, you get wonderful code, and no finished project.
The best coders I know _DO_ write elegant code - it's truely beautiful to read - but they also know that eventually, some compromises will need to be made. The actual design can't always mirror the design spec, and so they're willing to deviate. But frankly, the tendency it to "slap it together." If I were to stray to one tendancy or the other, it would be to produce more elegant code. More often than not, when it gets "slapped together" the maintainers and extenders go back and fix it right later anyhow. Why not do it right the first time!
Sure, I know that these reforms will leave loopholes to exploit. It won't fix the problem, but it might make it better, or at least cause those who will whore themselves out to be more visible for who they are...
Frankly, the system is a reflection of who the general public has become. We're (me included) selfish, primped, hypocritical, unethical, get-mine-first...you get as you can people.
George Bush, Ronald Regan, Bill Clinton? These are people that we elected. In fact, we wouldn't elect anyone to Pres who hasn't lied - you couldn't get there.
So, short of a "better" general populace, we're not going to make much headroom. That doesn't mean that we don't try though.
How do you take power away from the Federal & State Gvmt? The government isn't the ones with the power now. That's just a figure-head. The power rests with large corporations, and extremely wealthy individuals. If you abolish the Gvmt, or neuter it, the individuals will have one less layer to go though to exploit others in their quest for money and power.
Who protects us against monopolies? Who keeps the playing field level? The market surely won't do these things. Perhaps God will?
Sure, I do rant, because it bothers me. I have chosen the ways in which I think can make a difference. What's your solution - in detail?
I'm truely interested in seeing others viewpoints, but I must be convinced they have a chance of working.
Oh, the nefarious things polititions do. Did you notice that the campaign finance reform bill passed by quite a wide margin? Hmmmm. It seems as though when it was clear that it would pass, many "changed" their vote to seem more acceptable to voters. They didn't support it publicly, and used every back-room maneuver to keep it off the floor and out of the light, then when it appears and is going to make it, we just jump sides and vote for it.
And Georgie... He's doing lots against the bill(s) in private, but says - Oh, I'll sign it when it arrives I don't like it, but I won't oppose it either - what a crock.
Campaign contibutions are investments by those giving - esp when they're large. If you don't produce a good return (without being to obvious) you'll loose out as an "investment" vehicle.
The representation of us the people is a sham. Sure, if you are unopposed by a monied interest, you'll get some representation.
Just this week, I had a chat with the staff at a congressman's office. He claimed since Enron failed, it didn't get any special favors. [Sheesh, don't get me started on the falicy of this thinking..] He also thought that the prosecution of MS caused the crash of the NASDAQ! Finally, he totally misrepresented the bill in the house that incidentally passed!
I've posted this before, but basically, if you were a friend of the King (i.e. Brought him lots of wealth and power and priestiege) you got lots of representation. The same is true now. It just looks different. Politics, now like always, is ruled by money and power. Occasionally, in history, there is such upset and anger, things change, but not often.
It's funny how we see the "terrorists" who did the Boston Tea party as different than those who committ other acts of vandalism to bring attention to what they see as oppression. Either there's some justifications, or it's always wrong. If the latter, just label the Boston Tea Party participants as EVIL TERRORISTS. Otherwise use reasonable judgement in viewing the acts of others, rather than saying they broke the law and are wrong. Sure they might be wrong, but not just because they broke the law.
Lastly, doesn't it seem like the "police state" is a bit out of control. The protesters arrested during the Republican convention were held on one million dollars bail ($1,000,000). They were awful threats to the state, the prosecution would have us believe, at least to justify bails at such levels that rapists and murders don't see.
What happened? Oh, the charges were dropped! So was the individual a serious risk or not? That's blatant false testimony. Did the FBI etc get slapped for it? Not that I'm aware of?
Basically, in the relation to this whole thread, I find our law enforcement more focused on their well-being, not ours.
Software shouldn't be viewed any different that any other tool - cars, VCR's, Microwaves etc.
Sure, there are some additional problems, but most come from the design and implimentation _approach_.
If you've read "The Software Conspiracy" from Mark Minasi, you'll be enlightened about software design, and our expectations.
Closed vs. Open isn't the point. Either can be just horrible, or quite wonderful. But the devil is in the details.
What I think many miss is that BUGS = INSECURITY! Not all bugs will cause an insecure system, but some will.
To make a more secure system, we need to make a bug-free system, or nearly so. Look at these software design and implimentation methods.
Formal Methods
Code Audits
Testing
Design Reviews
Codified Best Practices
These are the very practicies that will give good code, even bug-free code if they are followed carefully.
Now, as part of the whole solution, you need more than a solution. You need a "push" too. Pull isn't enough by itself.
It's my opinion that there are a couple of factors that could make this happen.
User demand. We havn't seen much of this, but it may be growing. We also need to work to change the expectation of users. Most of us even, feel that "Oh, it just crashes sometimes" is an acceptble answer. In fact, how many of us, just add the "just reboot, it'll fix it" to the mix. I'm as guilty as anyone. But this just perpetuates the expectation that software isn't very reliable, and we shouldn't expect it to be. Lets change that.
Finally I think the legal route should be available too. [I'll get lots of flames here, but I'm ready...] Like any other DEFECTIVE product, the user should be able to redress damage from a product that wasn't reasonably designed. [Many of you will be howling to burn me at the stake now, but read on if you can] The standard for liability is a reasonable effort. I think those that don't use a strict design and implimentation method are not using due care. These methods have been around for some time now. We just don't use them. It's also fairly clear that they can work. How well they can be implimented in real commercial products we can't know, becuase I don't know of anyone that really uses this type of design method - do you? [And not just in name. In real methodical plodding fashion...]
Lastly, as in Minasi's book, many of you are now screaming - "It'll cost WAY TOO MUCH!"
Bah! How much of your time is spent chasing bugs down in commercial products. Sure, it only cost $100 at the store, but you put in 35 hours figuring out how to work around bug a,c & c. It crashed, and lost your document. It took 3 hours of tech time to find and restore the right version of the data file, or worse, it wasn't backed up, and poof! Companies spend way too much on support of bad products. These costs never get allocated to the real source, but instead it's just lumped into the general support costs. That just allows the vendor to shift the cost to your company, rather than having an "honest" cost of the product up front.
If software vendors had the real threat of laibility, they would then get serious about coding practices. If they didn't, the corp boards and shareholders would make sure it happened. A few examples, and we'd have better software.
Finally, I think that legal liability is the only way this will happen. Until everyone is forced to a higher standard, everyone will seek the lowest common denominator. If you produce better software, but you're new, how will you charge more for it? I just don't think the "market" will fix this. [Not that the courts aren't part of the market, but many will argue they're not, incorrectly IMHO.]
In the end, frankly, OSS might be easier to fix, but who cares? I think the design and implimentation before and while the code is written is much more important. From that perspective, I think OSS has a more difficult time imposing that regimented framework on it's coders and design people. But it's lots easier to show and embarrass the OSS people, precisely because the code is open - thus a better motivator perhaps?
They've already gotten a reputation for putting security and stability last. New features, fluff always come first. Virtually everyone knows that MS lives by marketing, marketing, marketing.
Now MS realizes that Security is becoming "the issue." "It's the security stupid."
Now consider the difficulites.
MS has an enormous codebase to now fix - after the fact. Adding in security is WAY hard after the fact. Things break, testing must be redone etc. It's a whole lot easier to put in anything if it was part of the origional design. Super costly and painful afterward.
MS has "integrated" all of its' products. So, now they have to not only test the separate products, but also in every combination. Ouch!
From Firewalls and Internet Security (the God book of security IMHO)
- All programs are bugy
- Large programs are even buggier than their size would indicate.
- If you do not run a program, it does not matter whether or not it is buggy.
- Exposed machines should run as few programs as possible; the ones that are run should be as small as possible.
Now MS has what most would consider code bloat, and not only that integration. That's going to be an ugly task (securing the code)
MS has always fudged the truth before. Marketing before substance. So people will be very skeptical about MS's claims about anything.
MS's stance about security was always lax. Combine this with the prior point, and we have skeptical^2.
MS can't really use this as a marketing tool - or at least not until they can prove they've done something significant. This will be hampered by points 1 + 2, and continuing security lapses, when trying to secure that code and missing things.
MS can't really make money off security - again, at least not until it has serious results to show. Thus this will become a massive cost center without any revenue. Ouch^2. That will have the bean-counters breathing down the throats of the development/QA people to keep costs down. You're not producing new products, and thus revenue - salary will suffer etc.
Lastly, it will be a unglamorous job, and project. It will be hard work. You'll be unappreciated. You'll be expected to be a miricle worker, and double quick too. When you miss something, you'll get lots of heat, and few kudo's (Provided this _really_ _is_ somthing MS is _really_ serious about - if not the heat won't be there, but that's the point.)
Thus, to summarize.
- MS has a MASSIVE task to fix - both in size and complexity.
- MS has integrated all these things together. I would bet that the mutual distrust model between different modules/products hasn't been used, adding to the difficulty/complexity.
- MS has a reputation for producing fluffy software with lots of features, but not much security - it's always an afterthought. Ship early fix bugs later.
- MS has never been known for its' honesty and plain talk, thus making the credibiltiy of its' proclaimation that much more doubtful.
- This strategy won't be done quick, or cheap. The task will be difficult both technically and politically.
- MS won't be able to milk this decision for extra revenue anytime soon.
- The very fact that this effort exists, tends to point out a problem in the first place.
My conclusions are these.
MS may really intend to do this. I don't really believe it, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. But even if they are committed, how long will they remain committed. They won't be able to show results for some time. They will certainly have failures. These will undermine the confidence of both internal staff, and the public they're "selling" it to. It will cost a massive amount. It won't generate revenue.
It's going to be really easy to just splash it out there, and crow about it. Later, when the trench warfare sets in, it's going to be tempting to forget about it. It's out of the limelight, and we can just let it go quietly into the night.
We'll see - I don't doubt that MS _could_ do it. I just don't think they will for many reasons. And there will be _so many reasons_ no to.
cduffy...
Clearly we're not going to see eye to eye...
I do think if you spent some time in a homeless shelter, and were subjected to the items mentioned, you would be glad to have some people "stand up" for your decent treatment. That's not hypocritical. It's trying to hold those who want to help to a higher standard.
Also, what if just occasionally you arbitratily deleted all the files on the network? When anyone complains, you say - "Oh, don't look a gift horse in the mouth." "It free, what more do you want?"
That, like the SF terms are not trying. It's bad faith and bad effort. It ought to be labeled as such.
If you had read or comprehended the thread, you wold have found that we feel, and I think justifibly so, that SF isn't doing it's best. They're letting the lawyers go hog-wild in changing the terms of their service. There isn't any decent justification in doing so either, other than bad faith.
Also, to correct a poster a level up, we're not suggesting that legislation fix the problem either.
Many of us feel that if you're just doing good to look good, it's kind of empty. Either it's charitible or it's free. They're not the same. If you're going to do something for the community, do the very best job you can i.e. "Do it right or not at all."
Saying it's free doesn't excuse you from doing a good job. This isn't a matter of us judging the attempts at "below our standard," it's looking at the bad faith in the new terms and saying "that's not charity."
Lets use the soup kitchen example. If a soup kitchen said, we'll give you soup, but we can throw you out for _any_ reason, and by the way, if you leave any of your stuff, we're not obligated in _ANY_ way to return your stuff. Also, we'll take pictures of you while you're in the shower, but we'll probably not show them to anyone. Lastly, if we decide to throw you out, we're not obligated to tell you why.
Sure, the soup kitchen could do all these things. Hey, at least the homeless are getting fed - right?! But the very act of describing these "policies" says something unsavory about the very nature of the soup kitchen. I'm not homeless, but I would try to stand up for the homeless, and their dignity, and say that the terms of the soup kitchen are badly flawed. I would probably say "Do it right or not at all." That's a reasonable criticism IMHO. And being reasonable in this case doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I have my own soup kitchen.
It would seem in your world, unless you offer the same service, you're never allowed to critique?
If I offer Free Services to terminate with extreme prejudice, but you don't, you can't complain about the service? (I know, that's a straw man, but your argument is so misguided from where the topic started, and thus so far away from the substance, I shudder)
I think what you mean is that it's not longer useful to you, rather than worn out trash...
I would have a problem if you donated worn-out clothing however. "Charity" that's just giving what is worn-out and trash isn't charity. This would fall under my "habitat for humanity" example.
On other topic...
The basis for all this, is that the terms look like, smell like and taste like shark-lawyer terms. I have to ask myself, why is the company hiring shark lawyers to draw up these things? It then makes me question who's in charge. Things DO roll downhill - if the head of the company allows the legal department do impliment such stuff, it indicates that they may not care about us any more. Thus "shoddy" charity.
Seemingly inconsequential stuff can help us "see" into the internal workings of companies we deal with. By keeping our eyes open, and testing the wind, we can get wind of these things _before_ we get screwed.
I do consulting for a private school - I do get paid, but not near enough to cover what I could make getting other consulting clients at normal rates.
But I agonize over this alot. I don't always have enough time to do the best job possible at the school. I know that we could do more, and do some things better. I often wonder, "Should I quit, and let someone else do a better job?" "If I can't do it right, I'm part of the problem." Just because I'm doing something for "charity" doesn't mean that I can do a shoddy job.
I DO do something. I also PERSONALLY agonize over the very things we're discussing.
Ok, I should have used a pasty white guy named "Kenney Boy" Lay.
Of course, he just stole all your reirement and cleaned out your bank account and stock holdings. Arthur Anderson promptly shredded you to eliminate all the "working papers"
This is like riding down the road with Guido (sorry all italians) who says..."Ya know punk, I'm going to kill you." He pulls out his gun and gets ready to pull the trigger, when Guido sees a cop car pull along side. Guido promptly puts away his gun.
Do you:
A) Say, "Hey Guido is a great guy...see he didn't kill me. He must not be so bad after all.
B) Think Guido is a scumbag. He would have killed me if not for the threat of the cop. I don't think I'll continue to associate with Guido. In fact I think I'll just out of the truck right now...
If you picked A, please drink the Koolaid now.
Comcast and a whole host of other unethical companies don't give a hoot about you. Sure they might not rape you this week, but as soon as they can get away with it, they will.
With our Gvmt from, by and for Big business, these occurances are going to happen more often. And don't expect to see the cop that saved Guido. Gvmt doesn't have the funds to protect the little guy anymore.
I just think that if you offer the service, free of no, you ought to do it right.
The terms are slanted far in SF's favor...why? They don't need these terms. It doesn't really make life better for them.
Lots of people are saying.."but they won't do these evil things that the terms say they can... "Well, why have them in the terms then?
AGAIN SF SHOULD DO IT RIGHT, OR NOT AT ALL. This is like volenteering your time to habitat for humanity, and building houses that are shoddy. When anyone complains, just say, "Well, you get what you pay for..." What a crock!
If SF wants to donate to the community, then do it with a pure heart, and openly and fairly. Otherwise, get out of the "charity" business.
That's a crock. No court would hold you liable if the FBI came in with a warrant - in fact, you probably couldn't get it into court.
If they are liquidated, and whoever the owning entity is, if they voliate the terms of the contract, they should get sued.
All the reasons I've seen so far explaining the changes in privacy policy are bogus, short of those saying that SF wants to abandon any restrictions on their privacy requirements.
That doesn't mean they're going to violate your privacy, but they want no reprocussions when they do.
I don't use SF, and so none of this effects me...plus, I'm a horrible programmer [grin]
But if SF can't do it right, why not just quit? If they did, I'm sure some alternative would pop up. But the fact that a huge vendor is still in the gap, providing service for free, means that others who might be able to do it better, but might have to charge, can't.
Sheesh, this is like saying, "I'll mow your lawn, but occastionally, I reserve the right to kill the lawn..." Well, if you can't do it right, just get out of the way, don't do it at all, and let someone else do it better.
The terms are inexcusable. They don't really provide any significant benefit to SF. What I think happened, they got some shark-head lawyer to redo the terms. He promptly slanted all the terms dramatically in the favor of SF. It wasn't necessasary, and SF should tell said legal counsel where to stick it. They should also redraw the terms again to be more fair.
More to the point if you paid $0.79 for it, you should still be able to do anything under fair use. These "protections" really seem more bent at preventing fair-use rather than actually preventing copywrite violations. The industry really wants to prevent you from getting the music to an MP3. I think it's a way of getting you to pay to get the music again, in your favorite format. Personally, I don't think it has anything to do with copywrite violation prevention.
Basically mega-corps and our gvmt - from, by and for mega-corps is only interested in bending you, the customer over.
Let me paraphrase...
The GPL is free (as in no cost [and as in speech]) and as a result the GPL requires "makers of derivative works to grant their users the same freedoms they themselves enjoy.
This aims at maximizing the amount of software for which users have these freedoms."
Basically, you got something for nothing. In order to get this something for nothing, you also must agree to give others the same choices we gave you. If you don't like it, you don't have to have it for free. You can come and talk to me (the author) to negotiate a non-free license. (I know that many GPL'files will shudder at this, but it is fair and reasonable (at least to me!) [grin]
Or you can have a hit off this crack pipe here and give everyone rights to your work for nothing. [big grin]...The BSD license has it's place, I just can't see myself using it.
I think that summarizes (sp) it best for me. Good points.
But, I would guess that you would say that the GPL is not as free as the BSD license?
The BSD license gives you even more freedom. It may potentially give the user of your derivative work less "freedom" but that's another matter.
Thanks!
P.S. I do think that the average person would see the GPL as requiring _additional_ responsibilities. I understand the distinction you're making, but when you say "free" most people think, "ok, I'm free to do what I want with it..."
Not only that, but here in Oregon, Qwest decided that they could sell (that's right SELL) your calling patterns to marketers etc.
That's right, for a measley $20K (I don't know how much...), I could know that you call Pizza Hut 13 times a month, and that right after calling Pizza Hut, you called some video store in a really bad section of town. Sure, I don't know exactly what transpired in those conversations, but I could probably guess. Tie that to some credit-card and bank transactions, and I got a really good idea.
In short "NO IT AIN'T ILLEGAL" and no, "all your data belong to us."
And our Judicial, Executive, and Legislative brances (for, by, and from "Big Business TM") will gladly bend you over for them!
The GPL does not restrict your rights under copyright law.
Well, it may not restrict you, but you have additional responsibilities. Namely if you make changes you then release to anyone else, you must then also public the source, and attach the same GPL license to that code...
No, it is a politically motivated license that is designed to shut away the hard work of contributors behind its walls
I would agree it's "politically" motivated license - though I think the word politically is misguided... But it's intent is not to prevent others from using the work. It's just an attempt to entice you to use the code, and by doing so, also encourage you to contribute to the community.
The GPL tries to maintain a collective system. It grants additional rights, but in the effort to maintain a community effort, it also requires you to publish the source for any changes that you release. That's a give and a take. The take is justified. If I give out to everyone, I also expect that they give back into the community.
Think of a community garden. Everyone works in the garden, and when it's done, everyone gets to participate in the "fruit" & vegtables [grin]. All is well and good. But one of the members take the fruits and vegatables and goes and sells them for profit. That violates the spirit of the community garden, at least in my view. I want to contribute to the community, not to someone elses profits.
The BSD license is fine if you don't mind anyone taking from the community, and never putting back. It also allows others to take the community work and then extend it, and use it for profit. Those things bother me, especially when I'm trying to make a community.
If community doesn't matter to you, then BSD is fine. The BSD doesn't seem any different than public domain software - could someone enlighten me? If anyone can take the source you release, and extend it, change it, or sell it, than just say "Oh, by the way, this program I'm selling, well George did most of the work..." what's the point? I understand the "poison pill" that you level at GPL, and it is there, but I don't really like others standing on my back, and then using the work just for their own benefit. I'm not saying you're crazy for liking BSD style licenses, I just think I would never do such a thing, at least not with any large project.
One further GPL facet that I like is this. If I create software and license it under the GPL, I can also SELL licenses to others for commercial purposes. That allows me to contribute to the community, while also allowing me to get payback from those who aren't going to contriute to the community.
It seems perfectly fair to me. If you want to use GPL software, go inquire of the authors - negotiate an appropriate fee, and use the branch licensed outside of the GPL. It doesn't prevent closed source, or selling code. It does keep people from siphoning off the energies of the community, and using for their own purposes.
I'd truly love to hear some further expansion about this, so flame, or just sputter away. [grin]
You say...
I think software manufacturers should be able to disclaim warranty, just like you can in any other industry: by prominently labeling the product to be "AS IS, no warranty" before money changes hands.
Well, in most "goods" sales, you can't disclaim warranty. It must be fit for the purpose designed. Actually, you CAN disclaim them, but a court will laugh at you is you try to use the disclaimer as a defense when you get sued.
The point I've made is that this should then be an individually contracted process.
One shouldn't be able to escape the difficulties of contracting by just including a EULA. If you want a contract, then you must negotiate with me - personally!
If you just want to sell me software, you should have to sell me a copy. I get all the normal rights available to other intangible goods, but you can't impose additional restrictions.
The GPL might have some difficulties under this system though... [sigh]
Remember when Borland had the "book" license? This software is like a book. You can use it, but no one else can use it while you're using it. If you give it to someone, you no longer have the "book." etc. That's a practical sale of goods sale. This makes sense, and EVERYONE understands it just fine. EULA's just make things more confusing, and in my opionion, make it more likely that the user will violate those terms. Users who don't understand the wild legal terms in the license, then say, "Well screw the lawyers who wrote this, and the company that paid them. I'm going to do what I want." If the terms were clear and simple AND REASONABLE, I believe that most people would be willing to abide those terms.
EULA's don't prevent distribution any more than a common sense goods style sale. The law should make clear that copying software and not purchasing is illegal. But should the vendor be allowed to make you agree to a EULA to use your music CD or DVD Movie? I don't think so.
The law should treat these as intangible goods. You get to use the software if you purchased it, or if someone gave it to you, but the vendor can't throw in all sorts of "extra" clauses that allow them to prevent you from publishing benchmarks etc. Or search your computer any time they please to "make sure you're honest..."
The problem you describe isn't addressed by any EULA. You want to prevent copying - that's not something that the EULA prevents. Music trading (MP3's) isn't legal and it happens lots. There's not a EULA for music CD's, but it's still illegal. Same with DVD's and virtually any other intangible property. Why does software get different treatment? Why does software escape the common sense "sale of goods" rules?
I don't mean to be hostile... But everyone understands the ideas around intangible goods. You get the good when you pay for it. You can't just give copies of these intangible goods away to people who aren't going to purchase it too. The EULA is just a red-herring the vendors want us to believe that they need to prevent massive copying, WW III, belly button lint, and the end of life as we know it.
I think EULA's should get DUMPED. They don't serve any purpose other than giving the users sticks, and the vendor M1A1 Tanks and M16's. And like any other situation where the parties "bargaining" have massive disparities in power, the party with less power gets screwed. EULA's only help lawyers and the vendors who want to force them on you.
The sale of software should in general, follow the rules and protections of a sale of goods.
This would prevent the slipping in of "contract" style wording, and the attendant need to have every software license reviewed by a lawyer. Sure, really wild terms in a software license might get thrown out in court, but that will take time and more importantly MONEY!
This is why UCITA is 3 or 4 or 100 times as bad as the current situation. UCITA allows all software to be contracts, and formalizes the legal standing, so contracts become the norm.
As a follow-up, I beleive that all software should also be subject to normal liability/tort law. If software doesn't do what it's supposed to do, and the vendor didn't take adequate care to ensure that it would, the vendor should be liable for damages.
I made this point a day or two ago, but again...
Sure, software might cost more to produce if it had to survive a "reasonable" test for correct function. But how much do the companies that employ us as consultants/help-desk people/network engineers, etc, spend having us chase bugs down that shouldn't have been there in the first place. Add that to the "cost" of the product, and you have the "real" cost. And I submit that it's way, WAY higher than most of us realize.
Until there's some real threat to shipping crappy software, the usual suspects will continue to "ship early, fix bugs later" if ever. Oh, and while you're at it, "add lots of fluff, and cool UI elements" (Does this remind anyone of Windows XP - a totally gross fluffy UI (my opinion) and a HUGE GAPING hole in security.) Adding some teeth to the legal system will give everyone a _chance_ to slow down and get things right. The shareholders will understand, the board of directors will understand etc.
Until we all require decent software that runs right, and a sale process that is fair, and understandable, we're going to continue to get screwed. UCITA and LONG LEGAL EULA's will always favor the software vendor. The court system may now be (finally) realizing that software isn't that much different than any other good, for example, shovels or cars or VCR's. These goods don't (AFAIK) have EULA's, and are subject to serious repercussions should they work incorrectly. Plus your ability to force the vendor to refund your money is much greater.
Repeat after me...
"Software just ain't that different from regular stuff we all use every day" In fact, software/firmware is in lots of devices, and we don't accept similar restrictions in their use...what about cell phones. Did you have to agree to a EULA to use it? Does it reboot/crash often? How about your VPR or Toaster or Car or Microwave?
Screw EULA's. Screw UCITA. They're both just ways to tip the balance of power WAY over to the manufacturer/seller. They don't offer any protections that a resonable seller needs.
Slashdot Mirror
But another factor is the moral or ethical obligation. If you feel the law is immoral, or wrong, you may personally feel an obligation to break the law, but preserve the "spirit" of the law in supporting the actual artist.
There might be some merit to the argument that the RIAA etc bring a small contribution to the table in marketing and advertising, but the outcome isn't moral at all.
A fair system would accord the record companies a FIXED portion of revenues to cover expenses. Then there would be a "return on investment" portion, not to exceed 15%/annum overall. All additional profits would go to the artist. That would mean that at first, the music company would take a higher %'age of the profit, but later (more sales) the artist would take greater and greater percentages.
Just some thoughts...
Cheers!
If you've read "The Software Conspiracy" from Mark Minasi, you'll be enlightened about software design, and our expectations.
What I think many miss is that BUGS = INSECURITY! and also MORE CODE = Exponentially MORE BUGS.
To make a more secure and less bug prone system, we need to limit the code size.
From Firewalls and Internet Security (the God book of security IMHO)
- All programs are bugy
- Large programs are even buggier than their size would indicate.
- If you do not run a program, it does not matter whether or not it is buggy.
- Exposed machines should run as few programs as possible; the ones that are run should be as small as possible.
This all applies to security, but in a more general sense, it applies to reliable code.
(I'm a lousy coder in general...) Sure, I can create cool IDEAS, and impliment them, though in a crude but working manner. But, when you want to maintain my code, it's not so pretty. Since 9/10th's of a project is maintain and extend, the real cost of my code comes after I've written it. Thus, someone that has COOL ideas paired with someone that has AWESOME coding skills is a real marriage made in heaven.
Successful coders DO write the most efficient code. Probably not the most efficient POSSIBLE, but really efficient. If you don't start there, by the time the project is extended, and maintained, you've got a massive mess. (Believe me, I know!)
The best programmers make a balance between perfect technical code, and actually finishing a project. If you slap it all together, and "just get the project done..." the result is sucky code, and really sucky extendability and maintainability. If they work too hard on technically wonderful code, you get wonderful code, and no finished project.
The best coders I know _DO_ write elegant code - it's truely beautiful to read - but they also know that eventually, some compromises will need to be made. The actual design can't always mirror the design spec, and so they're willing to deviate. But frankly, the tendency it to "slap it together." If I were to stray to one tendancy or the other, it would be to produce more elegant code. More often than not, when it gets "slapped together" the maintainers and extenders go back and fix it right later anyhow. Why not do it right the first time!
Cheers!
I don't see any concrete answers in your post.
Sure, I know that these reforms will leave loopholes to exploit. It won't fix the problem, but it might make it better, or at least cause those who will whore themselves out to be more visible for who they are...
Frankly, the system is a reflection of who the general public has become. We're (me included) selfish, primped, hypocritical, unethical, get-mine-first...you get as you can people.
George Bush, Ronald Regan, Bill Clinton? These are people that we elected. In fact, we wouldn't elect anyone to Pres who hasn't lied - you couldn't get there.
So, short of a "better" general populace, we're not going to make much headroom. That doesn't mean that we don't try though.
How do you take power away from the Federal & State Gvmt? The government isn't the ones with the power now. That's just a figure-head. The power rests with large corporations, and extremely wealthy individuals. If you abolish the Gvmt, or neuter it, the individuals will have one less layer to go though to exploit others in their quest for money and power.
Who protects us against monopolies? Who keeps the playing field level? The market surely won't do these things. Perhaps God will?
Sure, I do rant, because it bothers me. I have chosen the ways in which I think can make a difference. What's your solution - in detail?
I'm truely interested in seeing others viewpoints, but I must be convinced they have a chance of working.
Cheers!
Oh, you're represented alright...
By the best government that money can buy!
Oh, the nefarious things polititions do. Did you notice that the campaign finance reform bill passed by quite a wide margin? Hmmmm. It seems as though when it was clear that it would pass, many "changed" their vote to seem more acceptable to voters. They didn't support it publicly, and used every back-room maneuver to keep it off the floor and out of the light, then when it appears and is going to make it, we just jump sides and vote for it.
And Georgie... He's doing lots against the bill(s) in private, but says - Oh, I'll sign it when it arrives I don't like it, but I won't oppose it either - what a crock.
Campaign contibutions are investments by those giving - esp when they're large. If you don't produce a good return (without being to obvious) you'll loose out as an "investment" vehicle.
The representation of us the people is a sham. Sure, if you are unopposed by a monied interest, you'll get some representation.
Just this week, I had a chat with the staff at a congressman's office. He claimed since Enron failed, it didn't get any special favors. [Sheesh, don't get me started on the falicy of this thinking..] He also thought that the prosecution of MS caused the crash of the NASDAQ! Finally, he totally misrepresented the bill in the house that incidentally passed!
I've posted this before, but basically, if you were a friend of the King (i.e. Brought him lots of wealth and power and priestiege) you got lots of representation. The same is true now. It just looks different. Politics, now like always, is ruled by money and power. Occasionally, in history, there is such upset and anger, things change, but not often.
It's funny how we see the "terrorists" who did the Boston Tea party as different than those who committ other acts of vandalism to bring attention to what they see as oppression. Either there's some justifications, or it's always wrong. If the latter, just label the Boston Tea Party participants as EVIL TERRORISTS. Otherwise use reasonable judgement in viewing the acts of others, rather than saying they broke the law and are wrong. Sure they might be wrong, but not just because they broke the law.
Lastly, doesn't it seem like the "police state" is a bit out of control. The protesters arrested during the Republican convention were held on one million dollars bail ($1,000,000). They were awful threats to the state, the prosecution would have us believe, at least to justify bails at such levels that rapists and murders don't see.
What happened? Oh, the charges were dropped! So was the individual a serious risk or not? That's blatant false testimony. Did the FBI etc get slapped for it? Not that I'm aware of?
Basically, in the relation to this whole thread, I find our law enforcement more focused on their well-being, not ours.
Software shouldn't be viewed any different that any other tool - cars, VCR's, Microwaves etc.
Sure, there are some additional problems, but most come from the design and implimentation _approach_.
If you've read "The Software Conspiracy" from Mark Minasi, you'll be enlightened about software design, and our expectations.
Closed vs. Open isn't the point. Either can be just horrible, or quite wonderful. But the devil is in the details.
What I think many miss is that BUGS = INSECURITY! Not all bugs will cause an insecure system, but some will.
To make a more secure system, we need to make a bug-free system, or nearly so. Look at these software design and implimentation methods.
Formal Methods
Code Audits
Testing
Design Reviews
Codified Best Practices
These are the very practicies that will give good code, even bug-free code if they are followed carefully.
Now, as part of the whole solution, you need more than a solution. You need a "push" too. Pull isn't enough by itself.
It's my opinion that there are a couple of factors that could make this happen.
User demand. We havn't seen much of this, but it may be growing. We also need to work to change the expectation of users. Most of us even, feel that "Oh, it just crashes sometimes" is an acceptble answer. In fact, how many of us, just add the "just reboot, it'll fix it" to the mix. I'm as guilty as anyone. But this just perpetuates the expectation that software isn't very reliable, and we shouldn't expect it to be. Lets change that.
Finally I think the legal route should be available too. [I'll get lots of flames here, but I'm ready...] Like any other DEFECTIVE product, the user should be able to redress damage from a product that wasn't reasonably designed. [Many of you will be howling to burn me at the stake now, but read on if you can] The standard for liability is a reasonable effort. I think those that don't use a strict design and implimentation method are not using due care. These methods have been around for some time now. We just don't use them. It's also fairly clear that they can work. How well they can be implimented in real commercial products we can't know, becuase I don't know of anyone that really uses this type of design method - do you? [And not just in name. In real methodical plodding fashion...]
Lastly, as in Minasi's book, many of you are now screaming - "It'll cost WAY TOO MUCH!"
Bah! How much of your time is spent chasing bugs down in commercial products. Sure, it only cost $100 at the store, but you put in 35 hours figuring out how to work around bug a,c & c. It crashed, and lost your document. It took 3 hours of tech time to find and restore the right version of the data file, or worse, it wasn't backed up, and poof! Companies spend way too much on support of bad products. These costs never get allocated to the real source, but instead it's just lumped into the general support costs. That just allows the vendor to shift the cost to your company, rather than having an "honest" cost of the product up front.
If software vendors had the real threat of laibility, they would then get serious about coding practices. If they didn't, the corp boards and shareholders would make sure it happened. A few examples, and we'd have better software.
Finally, I think that legal liability is the only way this will happen. Until everyone is forced to a higher standard, everyone will seek the lowest common denominator. If you produce better software, but you're new, how will you charge more for it? I just don't think the "market" will fix this. [Not that the courts aren't part of the market, but many will argue they're not, incorrectly IMHO.]
In the end, frankly, OSS might be easier to fix, but who cares? I think the design and implimentation before and while the code is written is much more important. From that perspective, I think OSS has a more difficult time imposing that regimented framework on it's coders and design people. But it's lots easier to show and embarrass the OSS people, precisely because the code is open - thus a better motivator perhaps?
Well, I've said my piece - do your damage.
MS is in a very hard position.
They've already gotten a reputation for putting security and stability last. New features, fluff always come first. Virtually everyone knows that MS lives by marketing, marketing, marketing.
Now MS realizes that Security is becoming "the issue." "It's the security stupid."
Now consider the difficulites.
MS has an enormous codebase to now fix - after the fact. Adding in security is WAY hard after the fact. Things break, testing must be redone etc. It's a whole lot easier to put in anything if it was part of the origional design. Super costly and painful afterward.
MS has "integrated" all of its' products. So, now they have to not only test the separate products, but also in every combination. Ouch!
From Firewalls and Internet Security (the God book of security IMHO)
- All programs are bugy
- Large programs are even buggier than their size would indicate.
- If you do not run a program, it does not matter whether or not it is buggy.
- Exposed machines should run as few programs as possible; the ones that are run should be as small as possible.
Now MS has what most would consider code bloat, and not only that integration. That's going to be an ugly task (securing the code)
MS has always fudged the truth before. Marketing before substance. So people will be very skeptical about MS's claims about anything.
MS's stance about security was always lax. Combine this with the prior point, and we have skeptical^2.
MS can't really use this as a marketing tool - or at least not until they can prove they've done something significant. This will be hampered by points 1 + 2, and continuing security lapses, when trying to secure that code and missing things.
MS can't really make money off security - again, at least not until it has serious results to show. Thus this will become a massive cost center without any revenue. Ouch^2. That will have the bean-counters breathing down the throats of the development/QA people to keep costs down. You're not producing new products, and thus revenue - salary will suffer etc.
Lastly, it will be a unglamorous job, and project. It will be hard work. You'll be unappreciated. You'll be expected to be a miricle worker, and double quick too. When you miss something, you'll get lots of heat, and few kudo's (Provided this _really_ _is_ somthing MS is _really_ serious about - if not the heat won't be there, but that's the point.)
Thus, to summarize.
- MS has a MASSIVE task to fix - both in size and complexity.
- MS has integrated all these things together. I would bet that the mutual distrust model between different modules/products hasn't been used, adding to the difficulty/complexity.
- MS has a reputation for producing fluffy software with lots of features, but not much security - it's always an afterthought. Ship early fix bugs later.
- MS has never been known for its' honesty and plain talk, thus making the credibiltiy of its' proclaimation that much more doubtful.
- This strategy won't be done quick, or cheap. The task will be difficult both technically and politically.
- MS won't be able to milk this decision for extra revenue anytime soon.
- The very fact that this effort exists, tends to point out a problem in the first place.
My conclusions are these.
MS may really intend to do this. I don't really believe it, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. But even if they are committed, how long will they remain committed. They won't be able to show results for some time. They will certainly have failures. These will undermine the confidence of both internal staff, and the public they're "selling" it to. It will cost a massive amount. It won't generate revenue.
It's going to be really easy to just splash it out there, and crow about it. Later, when the trench warfare sets in, it's going to be tempting to forget about it. It's out of the limelight, and we can just let it go quietly into the night.
We'll see - I don't doubt that MS _could_ do it. I just don't think they will for many reasons. And there will be _so many reasons_ no to.
Cheers!
cduffy...
Clearly we're not going to see eye to eye...
I do think if you spent some time in a homeless shelter, and were subjected to the items mentioned, you would be glad to have some people "stand up" for your decent treatment. That's not hypocritical. It's trying to hold those who want to help to a higher standard.
Also, what if just occasionally you arbitratily deleted all the files on the network? When anyone complains, you say - "Oh, don't look a gift horse in the mouth." "It free, what more do you want?"
That, like the SF terms are not trying. It's bad faith and bad effort. It ought to be labeled as such.
Cheers!
If you had read or comprehended the thread, you wold have found that we feel, and I think justifibly so, that SF isn't doing it's best. They're letting the lawyers go hog-wild in changing the terms of their service. There isn't any decent justification in doing so either, other than bad faith.
Also, to correct a poster a level up, we're not suggesting that legislation fix the problem either.
Many of us feel that if you're just doing good to look good, it's kind of empty. Either it's charitible or it's free. They're not the same. If you're going to do something for the community, do the very best job you can i.e. "Do it right or not at all."
Saying it's free doesn't excuse you from doing a good job. This isn't a matter of us judging the attempts at "below our standard," it's looking at the bad faith in the new terms and saying "that's not charity."
Lets use the soup kitchen example. If a soup kitchen said, we'll give you soup, but we can throw you out for _any_ reason, and by the way, if you leave any of your stuff, we're not obligated in _ANY_ way to return your stuff. Also, we'll take pictures of you while you're in the shower, but we'll probably not show them to anyone. Lastly, if we decide to throw you out, we're not obligated to tell you why.
Sure, the soup kitchen could do all these things. Hey, at least the homeless are getting fed - right?! But the very act of describing these "policies" says something unsavory about the very nature of the soup kitchen. I'm not homeless, but I would try to stand up for the homeless, and their dignity, and say that the terms of the soup kitchen are badly flawed. I would probably say "Do it right or not at all." That's a reasonable criticism IMHO. And being reasonable in this case doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I have my own soup kitchen.
It would seem in your world, unless you offer the same service, you're never allowed to critique?
If I offer Free Services to terminate with extreme prejudice, but you don't, you can't complain about the service? (I know, that's a straw man, but your argument is so misguided from where the topic started, and thus so far away from the substance, I shudder)
Cheers!
Just a note...
Thanks for the comments!
(unlike donating clothing that no longer fits).
I think what you mean is that it's not longer useful to you, rather than worn out trash...
I would have a problem if you donated worn-out clothing however. "Charity" that's just giving what is worn-out and trash isn't charity. This would fall under my "habitat for humanity" example.
On other topic...
The basis for all this, is that the terms look like, smell like and taste like shark-lawyer terms. I have to ask myself, why is the company hiring shark lawyers to draw up these things? It then makes me question who's in charge. Things DO roll downhill - if the head of the company allows the legal department do impliment such stuff, it indicates that they may not care about us any more. Thus "shoddy" charity.
Seemingly inconsequential stuff can help us "see" into the internal workings of companies we deal with. By keeping our eyes open, and testing the wind, we can get wind of these things _before_ we get screwed.
Cheers!
I do consulting for a private school - I do get paid, but not near enough to cover what I could make getting other consulting clients at normal rates.
But I agonize over this alot. I don't always have enough time to do the best job possible at the school. I know that we could do more, and do some things better. I often wonder, "Should I quit, and let someone else do a better job?" "If I can't do it right, I'm part of the problem." Just because I'm doing something for "charity" doesn't mean that I can do a shoddy job.
I DO do something. I also PERSONALLY agonize over the very things we're discussing.
Cheers!
I couldn't have said it better, even if I had tried.
Thanks,
Cheers!
Ok, I should have used a pasty white guy named "Kenney Boy" Lay.
Of course, he just stole all your reirement and cleaned out your bank account and stock holdings. Arthur Anderson promptly shredded you to eliminate all the "working papers"
Cheers!
This is like riding down the road with Guido (sorry all italians) who says..."Ya know punk, I'm going to kill you." He pulls out his gun and gets ready to pull the trigger, when Guido sees a cop car pull along side. Guido promptly puts away his gun.
Do you:
A) Say, "Hey Guido is a great guy...see he didn't kill me. He must not be so bad after all.
B) Think Guido is a scumbag. He would have killed me if not for the threat of the cop. I don't think I'll continue to associate with Guido. In fact I think I'll just out of the truck right now...
If you picked A, please drink the Koolaid now.
Comcast and a whole host of other unethical companies don't give a hoot about you. Sure they might not rape you this week, but as soon as they can get away with it, they will.
With our Gvmt from, by and for Big business, these occurances are going to happen more often. And don't expect to see the cop that saved Guido. Gvmt doesn't have the funds to protect the little guy anymore.
Cheers!
I just think that if you offer the service, free of no, you ought to do it right.
The terms are slanted far in SF's favor...why? They don't need these terms. It doesn't really make life better for them.
Lots of people are saying.."but they won't do these evil things that the terms say they can... "Well, why have them in the terms then?
AGAIN SF SHOULD DO IT RIGHT, OR NOT AT ALL. This is like volenteering your time to habitat for humanity, and building houses that are shoddy. When anyone complains, just say, "Well, you get what you pay for..." What a crock!
If SF wants to donate to the community, then do it with a pure heart, and openly and fairly. Otherwise, get out of the "charity" business.
Cheers!
That's a crock. No court would hold you liable if the FBI came in with a warrant - in fact, you probably couldn't get it into court.
If they are liquidated, and whoever the owning entity is, if they voliate the terms of the contract, they should get sued.
All the reasons I've seen so far explaining the changes in privacy policy are bogus, short of those saying that SF wants to abandon any restrictions on their privacy requirements.
That doesn't mean they're going to violate your privacy, but they want no reprocussions when they do.
Here's my take...
I don't use SF, and so none of this effects me...plus, I'm a horrible programmer [grin]
But if SF can't do it right, why not just quit? If they did, I'm sure some alternative would pop up. But the fact that a huge vendor is still in the gap, providing service for free, means that others who might be able to do it better, but might have to charge, can't.
Sheesh, this is like saying, "I'll mow your lawn, but occastionally, I reserve the right to kill the lawn..." Well, if you can't do it right, just get out of the way, don't do it at all, and let someone else do it better.
The terms are inexcusable. They don't really provide any significant benefit to SF. What I think happened, they got some shark-head lawyer to redo the terms. He promptly slanted all the terms dramatically in the favor of SF. It wasn't necessasary, and SF should tell said legal counsel where to stick it. They should also redraw the terms again to be more fair.
More to the point if you paid $0.79 for it, you should still be able to do anything under fair use. These "protections" really seem more bent at preventing fair-use rather than actually preventing copywrite violations. The industry really wants to prevent you from getting the music to an MP3. I think it's a way of getting you to pay to get the music again, in your favorite format. Personally, I don't think it has anything to do with copywrite violation prevention.
Basically mega-corps and our gvmt - from, by and for mega-corps is only interested in bending you, the customer over.
[Mega-Corp] "Hey, you should be thankin me!"
Cheers!
Let me paraphrase...
The GPL is free (as in no cost [and as in speech]) and as a result the GPL requires "makers of derivative works to grant their users the same freedoms they themselves enjoy.
This aims at maximizing the amount of software for which users have these freedoms."
Basically, you got something for nothing. In order to get this something for nothing, you also must agree to give others the same choices we gave you. If you don't like it, you don't have to have it for free. You can come and talk to me (the author) to negotiate a non-free license. (I know that many GPL'files will shudder at this, but it is fair and reasonable (at least to me!) [grin]
Or you can have a hit off this crack pipe here and give everyone rights to your work for nothing. [big grin]...The BSD license has it's place, I just can't see myself using it.
I think that summarizes (sp) it best for me. Good points.
Thanks for the time!
Cheers!
I see...
But, I would guess that you would say that the GPL is not as free as the BSD license?
The BSD license gives you even more freedom. It may potentially give the user of your derivative work less "freedom" but that's another matter.
Thanks!
P.S. I do think that the average person would see the GPL as requiring _additional_ responsibilities. I understand the distinction you're making, but when you say "free" most people think, "ok, I'm free to do what I want with it..."
Not only that, but here in Oregon, Qwest decided that they could sell (that's right SELL) your calling patterns to marketers etc.
That's right, for a measley $20K (I don't know how much...), I could know that you call Pizza Hut 13 times a month, and that right after calling Pizza Hut, you called some video store in a really bad section of town. Sure, I don't know exactly what transpired in those conversations, but I could probably guess. Tie that to some credit-card and bank transactions, and I got a really good idea.
In short "NO IT AIN'T ILLEGAL" and no, "all your data belong to us."
And our Judicial, Executive, and Legislative brances (for, by, and from "Big Business TM") will gladly bend you over for them!
Cheers!
The GPL does not restrict your rights under copyright law.
Well, it may not restrict you, but you have additional responsibilities. Namely if you make changes you then release to anyone else, you must then also public the source, and attach the same GPL license to that code...
No, it is a politically motivated license that is designed to shut away the hard work of contributors behind its walls
I would agree it's "politically" motivated license - though I think the word politically is misguided... But it's intent is not to prevent others from using the work. It's just an attempt to entice you to use the code, and by doing so, also encourage you to contribute to the community.
The GPL tries to maintain a collective system. It grants additional rights, but in the effort to maintain a community effort, it also requires you to publish the source for any changes that you release. That's a give and a take. The take is justified. If I give out to everyone, I also expect that they give back into the community.
Think of a community garden. Everyone works in the garden, and when it's done, everyone gets to participate in the "fruit" & vegtables [grin]. All is well and good. But one of the members take the fruits and vegatables and goes and sells them for profit. That violates the spirit of the community garden, at least in my view. I want to contribute to the community, not to someone elses profits.
The BSD license is fine if you don't mind anyone taking from the community, and never putting back. It also allows others to take the community work and then extend it, and use it for profit. Those things bother me, especially when I'm trying to make a community.
If community doesn't matter to you, then BSD is fine. The BSD doesn't seem any different than public domain software - could someone enlighten me? If anyone can take the source you release, and extend it, change it, or sell it, than just say "Oh, by the way, this program I'm selling, well George did most of the work..." what's the point? I understand the "poison pill" that you level at GPL, and it is there, but I don't really like others standing on my back, and then using the work just for their own benefit. I'm not saying you're crazy for liking BSD style licenses, I just think I would never do such a thing, at least not with any large project.
One further GPL facet that I like is this. If I create software and license it under the GPL, I can also SELL licenses to others for commercial purposes. That allows me to contribute to the community, while also allowing me to get payback from those who aren't going to contriute to the community.
It seems perfectly fair to me. If you want to use GPL software, go inquire of the authors - negotiate an appropriate fee, and use the branch licensed outside of the GPL. It doesn't prevent closed source, or selling code. It does keep people from siphoning off the energies of the community, and using for their own purposes.
I'd truly love to hear some further expansion about this, so flame, or just sputter away. [grin]
Cheers!
cpt kangarooski -
It that you? Is Mr. Green jeans there too. Wow!
Thanks for for comment. You said it much better than I. (And in a lot fewer words too! [grin])
I should have said - "What he said."
Thanks!
Cheers!
You say...
I think software manufacturers should be able to disclaim warranty, just like you can in any other industry: by prominently labeling the product to be "AS IS, no warranty" before money changes hands.
Well, in most "goods" sales, you can't disclaim warranty. It must be fit for the purpose designed. Actually, you CAN disclaim them, but a court will laugh at you is you try to use the disclaimer as a defense when you get sued.
The point I've made is that this should then be an individually contracted process.
One shouldn't be able to escape the difficulties of contracting by just including a EULA. If you want a contract, then you must negotiate with me - personally!
If you just want to sell me software, you should have to sell me a copy. I get all the normal rights available to other intangible goods, but you can't impose additional restrictions.
The GPL might have some difficulties under this system though... [sigh]
Remember when Borland had the "book" license? This software is like a book. You can use it, but no one else can use it while you're using it. If you give it to someone, you no longer have the "book." etc. That's a practical sale of goods sale. This makes sense, and EVERYONE understands it just fine. EULA's just make things more confusing, and in my opionion, make it more likely that the user will violate those terms. Users who don't understand the wild legal terms in the license, then say, "Well screw the lawyers who wrote this, and the company that paid them. I'm going to do what I want." If the terms were clear and simple AND REASONABLE, I believe that most people would be willing to abide those terms.
EULA's don't prevent distribution any more than a common sense goods style sale. The law should make clear that copying software and not purchasing is illegal. But should the vendor be allowed to make you agree to a EULA to use your music CD or DVD Movie? I don't think so.
The law should treat these as intangible goods. You get to use the software if you purchased it, or if someone gave it to you, but the vendor can't throw in all sorts of "extra" clauses that allow them to prevent you from publishing benchmarks etc. Or search your computer any time they please to "make sure you're honest..."
The problem you describe isn't addressed by any EULA. You want to prevent copying - that's not something that the EULA prevents. Music trading (MP3's) isn't legal and it happens lots. There's not a EULA for music CD's, but it's still illegal. Same with DVD's and virtually any other intangible property. Why does software get different treatment? Why does software escape the common sense "sale of goods" rules?
I don't mean to be hostile... But everyone understands the ideas around intangible goods. You get the good when you pay for it. You can't just give copies of these intangible goods away to people who aren't going to purchase it too. The EULA is just a red-herring the vendors want us to believe that they need to prevent massive copying, WW III, belly button lint, and the end of life as we know it.
I think EULA's should get DUMPED. They don't serve any purpose other than giving the users sticks, and the vendor M1A1 Tanks and M16's. And like any other situation where the parties "bargaining" have massive disparities in power, the party with less power gets screwed. EULA's only help lawyers and the vendors who want to force them on you.
The sale of software should in general, follow the rules and protections of a sale of goods.
This would prevent the slipping in of "contract" style wording, and the attendant need to have every software license reviewed by a lawyer. Sure, really wild terms in a software license might get thrown out in court, but that will take time and more importantly MONEY!
This is why UCITA is 3 or 4 or 100 times as bad as the current situation. UCITA allows all software to be contracts, and formalizes the legal standing, so contracts become the norm.
As a follow-up, I beleive that all software should also be subject to normal liability/tort law. If software doesn't do what it's supposed to do, and the vendor didn't take adequate care to ensure that it would, the vendor should be liable for damages.
I made this point a day or two ago, but again...
Sure, software might cost more to produce if it had to survive a "reasonable" test for correct function. But how much do the companies that employ us as consultants/help-desk people/network engineers, etc, spend having us chase bugs down that shouldn't have been there in the first place. Add that to the "cost" of the product, and you have the "real" cost. And I submit that it's way, WAY higher than most of us realize.
Until there's some real threat to shipping crappy software, the usual suspects will continue to "ship early, fix bugs later" if ever. Oh, and while you're at it, "add lots of fluff, and cool UI elements" (Does this remind anyone of Windows XP - a totally gross fluffy UI (my opinion) and a HUGE GAPING hole in security.) Adding some teeth to the legal system will give everyone a _chance_ to slow down and get things right. The shareholders will understand, the board of directors will understand etc.
Until we all require decent software that runs right, and a sale process that is fair, and understandable, we're going to continue to get screwed. UCITA and LONG LEGAL EULA's will always favor the software vendor. The court system may now be (finally) realizing that software isn't that much different than any other good, for example, shovels or cars or VCR's. These goods don't (AFAIK) have EULA's, and are subject to serious repercussions should they work incorrectly. Plus your ability to force the vendor to refund your money is much greater.
Repeat after me...
"Software just ain't that different from regular stuff we all use every day" In fact, software/firmware is in lots of devices, and we don't accept similar restrictions in their use...what about cell phones. Did you have to agree to a EULA to use it? Does it reboot/crash often? How about your VPR or Toaster or Car or Microwave?
Screw EULA's. Screw UCITA. They're both just ways to tip the balance of power WAY over to the manufacturer/seller. They don't offer any protections that a resonable seller needs.
Cheers