17 or 20 years was good enough then, but with the increased speed of research and invention, as well as the ability to make "absurd" amounts of money compared to back then, it is too long. The system is indeed good, but, as the writers of the constitution thought, as times change so do some of the necessities of law. I seriously doubt anyone is going to want 75 year old code, as the modifications to that code in the interim 75 years will not be public domain. Very few are going to see a reason to modify a fictitious book from the original, such is not so with source code.
What about those who come up with an idea independent of someone else, and miss out because we were too late to the patent office? That hardly encourages inventing; it encourages corporate sabotage, spying, legal disputes, etc....
There are more ways to spread genes than sexually. The base tobacco mosaic virus has been altered to spread beneficial genes via man-made "blights". If the terminator gene was incorporated into a virus/bacteria, it could be spread to other species of plants en masse. Odds are that some specimens would survive, but other environmental factors could wipe out those few survivors.
But the infertility could knock out other beneficial genes in the same plant. What if the infertility is/becomes a recessive trait, and is adjacent to a very positive gene? Such could doom a species to extinction from a competitor, that it would otherwise be able to overcome because of the beneficial gene.
Ownership of ideas is wrong for two reasons that I see. The second might also be a reason/way to "move away from the current system."
1) How many times have you had a good idea, independently, and later found out that someone else had already thought of it and patented it?
Such patents can discourage inventing, because what are the odds that something you have thought of has already happened?
2) Once an idea is thought of, and a monopolisitc patent for it created, the incentive to create something better / add value is decreased. You don't have to think of anything new since others will think of additions to your patent, and be forced to pay you royalties.
In most cases a 1 to 2 year patent would be enough to make alot of money, thereby encouraging ideas *and* encouraging value added ideas (the sole reason patent laws were created). The only time this falls apart is in the case of really long projects such as creation of new drugs, for which other measures can be taken.
You know those chemical cold packs? How about one in bandage form for burns?
I think the "down one" link gives them enough power over what they see. Setting the default leel to -1000 or making it so no post can be lower that 0 *is* making a decision for everyone. At least the current setup makes people be active if they want to see everything. The world needs more people who are active instead of passive, in its own small way, slashdot encourages this.
Didn't CmdrTaco say this article was meant for constructive criticism? This is the appropriate forum to tell Rob what they do/n't like, and what they would like done.
You're probably right, but the 408 moderators were picked from people who had been given a positive score by the original 25 moderators. This would percolate potential biases of the original moderators down through the other 380+. It's probably diluted enough that it no longer matters, but you can't be sure.
Research type stuff falls under a BSD-like license (ie. bibliographies and footnotes). I'll concede the other aspects of it (no plagiarism here!). It's alot easier to copy something out of a book than to copy a ui/api/etc..., at least for most people. This gives, or has given, enough protection for most cases.
I agree with your proposition, and follow it in life, but the only thing that forces me to follow it is my own conscience. My words were meant as debate, not flame.
I have used warez before. To me it was fully rationalized under the precipe that I couldn't afford the product anyway, so I was helping myself at the expense of no one else. The standard morality of fair play and legality do not force anyone into certain actions. It can be seen with people such as Gates, Pizarro, etc... that those who go against what most others see as right can benefit greatly. This doesn't make it Right (tm) but it makes it evolutionarily fit.
Looking back at my original post, I see where the "flame" comment came from. Sorry, but I was just responding to your "whine" comment in your original article with a dose of irony. (And yes, I realize the irony fully attaches to me as well. Complaining about people complaining about people complaining is about as ironic and redundant as you can get.) No harm meant;-).
The thoughts and phrases that pass through slashdot and the rest of the universe are part of that evolutionary world. People who tell others to stop crying, the world isn't fair so deal with it, etc... are just trying to brainwash others into passivety, thereby making it easier for their world-view/product to triumph. If they succeed in doing that, I guess they've shown that their way of doing things is, at least in the short-term, successful.
So, to all others who believe in the innate capability of the FS world, don't give up just becaus someone says you should! (or I'll be left all alone, and it's better for my ideological fitness that I'm not alone.)
To paraphrase Miles Vorkosigan (From Bujold's Books), "then maybe, just maybe, everyone's wrong but me." Sometimes everyone else IS crazy, the universe is a large place, it's bound to happen sometime.
"By saying 'religious' he means someone who is more interested in staying true to their beliefs than looking at the world around them, while by scientific you would think the opposite - someone who is more interested in discovering the world around them than paying attention to what people may strongly believe in."
Isn't the concept that discovering the world around you is positive also a matter of belief? Don't let your deep belief of this concept delude you into believing that it is something more than just a strongly held belief.
You seem to be crying an equally large river, because Stallman doesn't see the issue the same way you do.
An author may have chosen to make some software proprietary, but that doesn't mean I have to treat it as such. Their decision doesn't have to bind me if I don't want it to. (Though I don't do the pirate/warez scene, because I'm moderately high on the paranoia scale.)
I think that quoted statement above was particularly funny. After all, the grand marketplace is the reason for cloned products, denigrating this aspect of it seems hypocritical. Sure it's not fun when someone else "steals" your idea, but where did you get your idea from in the first place? emacs/vi/gcc/whatever may have started off as knock-offs of some other product, but they didn't stay that way, and that's why they're so successful.
And if the originator of GPL'd code wants to make a proprietary derivative, they can. All they have to do is take the source code they wrote, ask other copyright holders for permission, and they can. There is nothing to stop them. The BSD license, on the other hand, allows the original implimentator, and anyone else, to make a derivative work of other people's code.
The GPL is much more protective of *all* the author's and *all* the user's/debugger's rights than any other license out there. That's why I like GPL'd code. If it wasn't for someone making an originally crappy GPL'd implementation of a non-GPL'd product, we'd all be stuck in a proprietary morass, without our now nice working GPL'd alternatives.
It would be smarter for MS to port office and ie at the same time (and preferably have their own linux distro). Porting ie would just encourage some linux use at the expense of their profit (ie makes no money).
MS has probably already ported ie for inhouse use.
Yes, but honoring the past license (1.0) would mean honoring every bit, including the patent violation clause, which apple would have used to stopped use of the original source under license 1.0, which means you cannot use the original source under the 1.0 license.... Read my comment more carefully.
Slashdot Mirror
17 or 20 years was good enough then, but with the increased speed of research and invention, as well as the ability to make "absurd" amounts of money compared to back then, it is too long. The system is indeed good, but, as the writers of the constitution thought, as times change so do some of the necessities of law. I seriously doubt anyone is going to want 75 year old code, as the modifications to that code in the interim 75 years will not be public domain. Very few are going to see a reason to modify a fictitious book from the original, such is not so with source code.
What about those who come up with an idea independent of someone else, and miss out because we were too late to the patent office? That hardly encourages inventing; it encourages corporate sabotage, spying, legal disputes, etc....
There are more ways to spread genes than sexually. The base tobacco mosaic virus has been altered to spread beneficial genes via man-made "blights". If the terminator gene was incorporated into a virus/bacteria, it could be spread to other species of plants en masse. Odds are that some specimens would survive, but other environmental factors could wipe out those few survivors.
But the infertility could knock out other beneficial genes in the same plant. What if the infertility is/becomes a recessive trait, and is adjacent to a very positive gene? Such could doom a species to extinction from a competitor, that it would otherwise be able to overcome because of the beneficial gene.
Ownership of ideas is wrong for two reasons that I see. The second might also be a reason/way to "move away from the current system."
1) How many times have you had a good idea, independently, and later found out that someone else had already thought of it and patented it?
Such patents can discourage inventing, because what are the odds that something you have thought of has already happened?
2) Once an idea is thought of, and a monopolisitc patent for it created, the incentive to create something better / add value is decreased. You don't have to think of anything new since others will think of additions to your patent, and be forced to pay you royalties.
In most cases a 1 to 2 year patent would be enough to make alot of money, thereby encouraging ideas *and* encouraging value added ideas (the sole reason patent laws were created). The only time this falls apart is in the case of really long projects such as creation of new drugs, for which other measures can be taken.
You know those chemical cold packs? How about one in bandage form for burns?
I think the "down one" link gives them enough power over what they see. Setting the default leel to -1000 or making it so no post can be lower that 0 *is* making a decision for everyone. At least the current setup makes people be active if they want to see everything. The world needs more people who are active instead of passive, in its own small way, slashdot encourages this.
Didn't CmdrTaco say this article was meant for constructive criticism? This is the appropriate forum to tell Rob what they do/n't like, and what they would like done.
Ok, Ok, good job Rob. And I do mean it.
You're probably right, but the 408 moderators were picked from people who had been given a positive score by the original 25 moderators. This would percolate potential biases of the original moderators down through the other 380+. It's probably diluted enough that it no longer matters, but you can't be sure.
Research type stuff falls under a BSD-like license (ie. bibliographies and footnotes). I'll concede the other aspects of it (no plagiarism here!). It's alot easier to copy something out of a book than to copy a ui/api/etc..., at least for most people. This gives, or has given, enough protection for most cases.
I agree with your proposition, and follow it in life, but the only thing that forces me to follow it is my own conscience. My words were meant as debate, not flame.
;-).
I have used warez before. To me it was fully rationalized under the precipe that I couldn't afford the product anyway, so I was helping myself at the expense of no one else. The standard morality of fair play and legality do not force anyone into certain actions. It can be seen with people such as Gates, Pizarro, etc... that those who go against what most others see as right can benefit greatly. This doesn't make it Right (tm) but it makes it evolutionarily fit.
Looking back at my original post, I see where the "flame" comment came from. Sorry, but I was just responding to your "whine" comment in your original article with a dose of irony. (And yes, I realize the irony fully attaches to me as well. Complaining about people complaining about people complaining is about as ironic and redundant as you can get.) No harm meant
The thoughts and phrases that pass through slashdot and the rest of the universe are part of that evolutionary world. People who tell others to stop crying, the world isn't fair so deal with it, etc... are just trying to brainwash others into passivety, thereby making it easier for their world-view/product to triumph. If they succeed in doing that, I guess they've shown that their way of doing things is, at least in the short-term, successful.
So, to all others who believe in the innate capability of the FS world, don't give up just becaus someone says you should! (or I'll be left all alone, and it's better for my ideological fitness that I'm not alone.)
To paraphrase Miles Vorkosigan (From Bujold's Books), "then maybe, just maybe, everyone's wrong but me." Sometimes everyone else IS crazy, the universe is a large place, it's bound to happen sometime.
"By saying 'religious' he means someone who is more interested in
staying true to their beliefs than looking at the world around them,
while by scientific you would think the opposite - someone who is more
interested in discovering the world around them than paying attention
to what people may strongly believe in."
Isn't the concept that discovering the world around you is positive also a matter of belief? Don't let your deep belief of this concept delude you into believing that it is something more than just a strongly held belief.
The scientist is taking logic and the scientific method on faith. It's a good thing to do (IMO), but realize what you are doing.
That said, experientially speaking logic has a lot more to go for it than most other articles of faith (for me at least).
You seem to be crying an equally large river, because Stallman doesn't see the issue the same way you do.
An author may have chosen to make some software proprietary, but that doesn't mean I have to treat it as such. Their decision doesn't have to bind me if I don't want it to. (Though I don't do the pirate/warez scene, because I'm moderately high on the paranoia scale.)
Yes they do (or at least some do). Encouraging people to invent is THE major reason the patent process was created in the USA.
I think that quoted statement above was particularly funny. After all, the grand marketplace is the reason for cloned products, denigrating this aspect of it seems hypocritical. Sure it's not fun when someone else "steals" your idea, but where did you get your idea from in the first place? emacs/vi/gcc/whatever may have started off as knock-offs of some other product, but they didn't stay that way, and that's why they're so successful.
As long as you bought the album, mp3's and burned cd's are legal.
And if the originator of GPL'd code wants to make a proprietary derivative, they can. All they have to do is take the source code they wrote, ask other copyright holders for permission, and they can. There is nothing to stop them. The BSD license, on the other hand, allows the original implimentator, and anyone else, to make a derivative work of other people's code.
The GPL is much more protective of *all* the author's and *all* the user's/debugger's rights than any other license out there. That's why I like GPL'd code. If it wasn't for someone making an originally crappy GPL'd implementation of a non-GPL'd product, we'd all be stuck in a proprietary morass, without our now nice working GPL'd alternatives.
This license seems to cover the gist of what the DSL already does.
DSL
It would be smarter for MS to port office and ie at the same time (and preferably have their own linux distro). Porting ie would just encourage some linux use at the expense of their profit (ie makes no money).
MS has probably already ported ie for inhouse use.
Yes, but honoring the past license (1.0) would mean honoring every bit, including the patent violation clause, which apple would have used to stopped use of the original source under license 1.0, which means you cannot use the original source under the 1.0 license.... Read my comment more carefully.
What if someone else registers apple.com after apple (hypothetically) dies, and has that url? Woul dyou then have to send your changes to them?
Libel/defamation lawsuit anyone?
What about those who open their mouth to drink, speak, breathe?