I just got back from a mini-Borcon not too long ago, and I was under the impression that as far as licenscing goes:
IDE/Compiler: Probably a proprietary license. They didn't seem too interested in releasing the source to the compiler or the IDE.
GUI apps: Trying their hardest w/ the licenscing and source distribution to a) make sure the libraries remain standard and under Borland's control, and b) the end-user can still release their programs under the GPL if they wish.
Kernel apps: Use GCC. Delphi/CPPB are for GUI. While you could (probably) use them for command line tools, you stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting your Delphi/CPBB program included in the kernel. They don't want to go in the kernel. They want a standard set of widgets that users can hook into and write programs for.
I was very impressed w/ the Kylix demo. In fact, w/ themes, you have more control over the GUI than you do in Windows. It is very slick. DB support is pretty solid (they configured and compiled a sample database viewer from scratch in under three minutes). I know the developers working w/ Nevrona to design the new Borland internet components (derived from Winshoes) and they're shaping up nicely (they are open source, but probably not GPL). In fact, in the whole presentation, I only saw three bugs: 1 IDE AV, 1 diagram tab that wasn't ported yet, and a case-sensitivity problem (unit named Unit1, saved in unit1.pas).
As far as this being a coup, maybe your avg. Linux user won't jump on this but you can bet IT shops will. Borland's JBuilder is already #1 Java IDE and VB is losing market share to Delphi. Delphi is going cross-platform (they seemed to suggest Mac as being the next target when rattling off about Qt support). Speaking of Qt, there was even talk of purchasing TrollTech in the not-so-distant future.
The primary reason Windows is #1 is because of software availability. Software is available because Windows has better dev tools than *n?x. The way I see it, Kylix is good news for everybody. ---
If you're afraid that people will warp your story, don't tell it to anyone.
(Before you think the following is a flame, please note that it isn't. This is more of an expansion refuting this statement as a bad way of saying a good point. Okay, on to my rant...)
That's exactly the kind of attitude that made copyright law such a good idea. If you want to get ideas to spread, don't tell somebody not to tell his story. That's the exact opposite of the whole free-software philosophy! Free software wants ideas to spread and the community/gift-economy is the incentive. OTOH, copyrighted closed-software uses a monopoly of limited (well, once upon a time) time as a monetary incentive. So both the closed- and open-software models are designed to spread ideas and promote the sciences and useful arts.
Telling somebody to keep their ideas to themselves is elitist and doesn't fit well into any development methodology I can think of.
(See, getting back to what I said earlier, this really sounds like a flame at this point, and I'll admit it kind of is, but read on...)
Really, that's the only way to be sure. Now, I'm pretty sure someone has come up with a similar story before anyways, and maybe that your story is a "warped" story from someone else you've heard. So why worry? What do you lose? Why be afraid over a perfectly natural thing?
This is the part of my post where I concede that you are correct. My main concern is that the previous statement could have been phrased ``That's a good thing! The free spread of information benefits society!'' So now I concede w/ the original point, you can't really control ideas and it's not a very admirable goal IMO. However, you can always use the word ``Official''. Remember, that's how you allow communities to expand on your ideas but you don't necessarily incorporate them into the core of whatever little universe you've created. They're left floating in the realm of ``unofficial''. Worrying about somebody changing something you've made is part of life -- it's part of the spread of ideas, and then there is the point that yeah, it's probably pretty similar to something that's already been done. The only way to see what happens, though, is to put it out there. ---
To start, I have to agree -- I think this kind of license is the way games should be developed. To answer your question, I say AI most definitely goes there because it may be game specific, but it might be useful to others. You know the reaper bot from Quake? Is that best open-source or closed-source? I don't know anybody that would say it's best for games if that source is kept closed. But then, to agree with the above post, that is a tough call.
The only concern I have is how to write such a license, particularly if your artistic expressions are also ``code'', for example, if you have a 3D game with a VRML-based engine. Source-code vs. artwork is fairly simple - you can read source code, you can't read a graphics or sound file. But you can read VRML, even though I think it'd qualify as art. I definitely think that if you use something like MAP files or VMRL, you should include the source (well, with VRML that's kind of a moot point), but I think that should also fall under the artistic part of the license.
You could always do what Microsoft does w/ Direct X -- classify a certain branch of the game source REDISTRIBUTABLE. The rest belongs to you, and the engine has to be able to exist without your stuff. If somebody changes it, it must behave just like yours. For example, mygame/bin (not redist) mygame/mymod (not redist) mygame/mymod/source/art (not redist) mygame/mymod/source/sound (not redist) mygame/redist/engine/source (redist) mygame/redist/engine/bin (redist) mygame/redist/engine/lib (redist) mygame/redist/engine/install (redist) ...etc...
I think this would avoid ambiguities in the license. Just specify ``Anything in the path/redist you may redistribute and falls under the GPL. Anything in other sections is subject to yadda.'' Just to make sure it can exist peacefully w/ the GPL, the engine must be able to run/compile/etc. w/out your game elements.
I dunno, I've just always wanted to make a game, but I like the principles of open source and I've been trying to figure out a way to benefit the games community but still be able to make money. If I could do it for a living, I would. ---
First of all, the courts are pretty good about making fair decisions. Everybody complains the system's screwed up, but the courts are actually the best defenders of your freedom. Either way, though, it's bound to be good news, because there are two scenarios I can see:
1) GPL wins - it becomes legally proven that it's a valid license. For the consumer (or even businesses), GPL'ed software is much better than typical closed-source licenses, so it gains more ground. 2) GPL loses - the court sites the Macy's case, stating that software licenses aren't allowed without a signature and that the First Sale doctrine applies. This means that while the GPL loses all it's power, it's also pretty much lost any reason to exist -- mission accomplished.
Either way, it's good for the end-user. In fact, I honestly think I'd rather see a First Sale ruling rather than a ruling that proved the validity of the GPL because then consumers don't have to worry about licenses because now case-law would guarantee what rights you have and don't have. Sure the GPL would be meaningless, but you know what, at least all the other software out there is now treated just like a book or a movie or anyother copyrighted work. While I don't agree with many of RMS's ideals, I would like to see a world without shrinkwrap software licenses. ---
If you don't like the ruling, protest. Fill up the courts, dammit. If you can do it, register confusing names and parodies the sites. Then at the bottom of the page, link to somewhere where you tell everybody 1) the domain is not for sale and never will be, 2) the page is a parody of the another and link to the original, 3) why you registered it (in protest of BS trademark rulings) and link to the Boston article. Oh, yeah, and make it truly non-profit - no banner ads or order forms or anything. Pay out of pocket for your site. Teach these liberal, God-hating vegans that you won't stand for it!
Hypocritical Oath: I hereby affirm that I will always give advice that I would never myself take. I have better things to do than get sued and frankly the ruling doesn't affect me right now. I think it's because I'm lazy, but that won't stop me from telling everybody else to get off their asses and do something. ---
I read somewhere that that doesn't really hold up in court that well because it's pretty weak evidence. Basically, the mail-yourself thing isn't really sufficient evidence (you can open and reseal letters, for one). There was something about having to get a notary public to verify your letter to yourself was legit -- maybe a before and after (something like notorize s/he saw you seal the thing in the envelope and mail it to yourself and then notorize again that you received it in the mail unopened). Bear in mind though, I'm no lawyer. If you want to know for real what the cheapest, safest way to copyright something is, you can either go w/ the copyright office or talk to a copyright attorney. Sorry. Them's the breaks. ---
Imagine ten different servers, each with a mathematically random file available for download. The files are named by letters: A through J. If you download and XOR A, D, E and I, you get a Metallica MP3. A ^ D ^ F gives you the latest chapter to a Stephen King novel. C ^ E ^ F gives you the recipe to Coca-Cola. Another dozen combinations give you a dozen different files.
Thank you for a good explanation. I haven't been bothering to explain because you're doing a good job.
I think, though, one thing the author of the website linked to was saying is that you also want to always make sure you use those pads in protected speech. In your example, all those pads could be deleted because all the combinations you mentioned were illegal. However, if for example, A^B^C=The Bible, B^C^D=Hamlet, C^D^E=Gulliver's Travels, then it's slightly different. None of these can be restricted (well, AFAIK - I'll get into the legal side in a bit). If A^D^E = a Metallica MP3, you can't delete it without deleting The Bible, Hamlet and Gulliver's Travels along with it. All in all, a very good plan.
Constitutionally, it's very sound. I guess at this point however I should mention that legally (remember law and constitution don't always go hand in hand), random data is not protected speech. IANAL but I can tell you this is the law. Additionally, MP3's are not human-readable either, so they are not protected speech, but they can be copyrighted. In other words, you can't copy them freely but they can be freely censored. I'd say there's probably some pretty strong precedent that Metallica could very easily force you to delete the Bible, Hamlet and Gulliver's Travels. It's shaky legal ground because you can argue that if copyright law applies, then so does free speech, but in this case your protected speech might not be protected. I think the way it's set up though gives it a bit of strength because there are no dates -- you can't tell if Hamlet or Gulliver's Travels were generated before or after the Metallica MP3. By removing it, you are censoring more than one author.
I guess the important thing to make this work is to always make sure if you post something controversial that you post it in such a way you can't remove it without deleting something typically protected by the First Amendment. It'd be a very interesting court case and if somebody does decide to test the legality of this kind of system (though I don't suggest you do anything illegal), I would like to see what the courts have to say. ---
If he had bought the movie, on tape or whatever, it would be a different story.
I know the discussion's over, but as I was browsing through it, I thought I'd mention that, while I have no professional basis in copyright law whatsoever, I got the impression from the recent RIAA vs. my.mp3.com case that the source of the material is crucial to determining whether or not infringement occurred. For example, had my.mp3.com allowed the users to upload the tracks from their CD's to mp3.com's servers, where it was converted to mp3 and could only be retrieved by the user, then mp3.com would not have infringed on copyright. However, because my.mp3.com only verified the user had the song and then let them listen to mp3s of mp3.com's copies, it was infringement.
In other words, the copy you use must be made from your copy -- you don't own the right to access a copy (i.e. it doesn't matter if Valenti made the tape), you own a copy and it's yours to do with as you please (except distributing copies to others).
Ok, back to Valenti - if he downloaded the film from John Q. Pirate (provided John isn't the copyright holder and isn't authorized to distribute the film), John Q. Pirate definitely broke the law. Infringement definitely occurred because opyright applies only to the physical copy itself, not to the IP -- if you scratch your CD, you can't copy a friends, but you could have copied your own. (Of course, if you look at the Metallica vs. Napster community thing, where Metallica only banned users that allowed others to download copyrighted Metallica songs from them, and not those that actually downloaded the songs, I don't think recieving unauthorized a copy of a copyrighted work is infringement. It's distributing copies that's bad. So if this is indeed the case, Valenti (or whoever downloaded the movie) didn't break the law, the guy that made the movie available did. At least, that's my understanding.) ---
Classic interpreted BASIC is interactive. You get instant feedback when you do something wrong. In fact, you can type in a command and watch what it does at any time. There is no compiling, no linking, no libraries, no GUIs, and no lists of cryptic error messages. You don't have to master a complicated editor, and there a no makefiles.
This is absolutely correct and is a benefit of being interpreted, not of being BASIC. If you can find another better structured language that is interactive, all the better (I cannot suggest Java). Pascal, though, is pretty flexible but has all the traps to make sure you don't shoot yourself in the foot. Yeah, it doesn't have the benefit of being quite so interactive, but hey, kids pick up faster than adults. Get a good IDE with a decent debugger (IDE debuggers give it interactivity) and they'll be all set. I was using the QBasic & QuickBasic IDE's without a problem and the Turbo Pascal and Turbo C IDE's were no problem either (Borland also has a good habit of providing very thorough help files, better than anything I've seen for BASIC).
Once they understand variables, operators and their precendences, file I/O, etc. they can graduate to a better language. This I have to disagree on as far as BASIC being the best language. This is the area where BASIC starts to lose ground and why a language like Pascal is better -- for specifically this reason. Simple I/O (i.e. text via stdio) and interactivity, yes, BASIC is great, but if you ever want to go beyond that, use another language. My experience has been that Pascal is the best instructional language there is.
I guess what I've seen is kids that use BASIC tend to learn less about programming. I know that was the case for me too - the jump from BASIC to C was horribly difficult because I hadn't learned programming, I'd learned BASIC. After learning to program (C), I can pick up new languages much faster. I also noticed that BASIC is a better language after learning a real language. Besides, this is kids we're talking about. They will probably want to program graphics and if they do, a compiled language is the way to go.
Now to retract some of what I've said: BASIC would probably be acceptable to teach kids (for fun) if 1) it can be compiled, 2) the kids are taught about SUB and FUNCTION. Do that and BASIC would probably be okay, but only for a little while. It's too easy to learn bad programming techniques with BASIC. ---
Delphi is close enough to Pascal that it might be good - structered language, some OOP.
Actually, Delphi probably isn't a good first language for precicely the opposite reason that BASIC sucks -- Delphi is too object oriented for beginners to understand basic program flow. My vote is for Turbo Pascal 7.0. That is the absolute best teaching language there is, and IIRC, it was originally designed as an instructional language -- teach kids about structured programming, functions, OOP, memory management, disk access, etc. Go with TP 7.0. It's free, too. You should be able to find it and other older, free programming stuff here (apologies - couldn't verify the link because their DNS appears to be acting up). ---
I started on BASIC and it messed me up for a while. BASIC is designed to be easy, Pascal is designed to teach. In other words, BASIC is for people that don't want to learn structured programming - they want to get it done w/ the least amount of learning. In my book, that's a bad way to learn to program.
Go with Object Pascal - it's structured, object oriented and is not as complicated and mind-warping as BASIC or windows programming, and less prone to early programming errors than C. Eventually you can move them on (pref. to C/C++ and then *nix) and then they'll be able to tackle what they want to. Basically, when teaching somebody programming, I think the best way is to teach them to learn. I think Turbo Pascal 7.0 was the best tool for learning programming I've seen (and used). After that, move them to C because C is the greatest programming language in existence. ---
When I really actually think about it, I think you're right. Andover's lawyers probably wouldn't like/. reporting every bit of the legal back-and-forth (lawyers don't like that for some reason), so I'd guess every so often they'll prepare something suitable to the public that will keep us interested without giving away all their secrets. Hmm... Well, they are in a tight situation so I hope they keep us posted nonetheless. ---
The letter they sent is probably the worst legal document that I have ever seen written.
You're right. However, this one doesn't quite count. Microsoft asked for two letters - one acknowledging they received the letter, the second actually addressing the issue. This letter accomplished two things: 1) good PR, so/. doesn't look evil, and 2) make MS's lawyers think twice about what will happen if they pursue this. This letter doesn't address MS's claims and it doesn't have to. That's the next one. (Or so I would assume. If this is the second letter, well, good luck/. because you will need it.) ---
Actually, this has been standard for a long time. If it is new, it's probably just reiterating what's been their policy all along (although I admit it does sound kinda fishy). I think since they started Kylix, they may have found themselves a little nervous about the GPL which says no closed library dependencies. Well, they rely heavily on something called the Visual Component Library which is a kick-ass little system involving what they call Borland Package Libraries which can be integrated/linked at design-time (RAD), compile-time (static link) and/or run-time (dynamic link). Anyway, these BPL's contain the VCL and these BPLs are closed. Basically, this says that those compiled, standard BPL's are theirs, not yours, so by using their tools, you agree to abide by their rules, even if it means no GPL. They're just trying to beat the GPL to the punch. (I won't comment on their tactics, just tellin' it like it is.) Anyway, I think this applies more to the VCL/RTL packages (REDISTRIBUTABLES) & source than it does to your program.
It breaks down like this:
Link to VCL at compile time: OK. Link to VCL at run time: OK. Use VCL at design time: OBVIOUSLY OK (that's how RAD works). Distribute unmodified VCL for free (beer) with your program: OK. Change VCL and link at compile-time: OK. --- Distribute VCL source: NO. Distribute RTL source: NO. Distribute modified VCL (change VCL and/or RTL, and link at run-time): NO.
That's what this license says. There are certain tricks and exceptions that are allowed or that they don't really care about, but this is basically the rules. I'd guess what they're saying here is even if you release something under the GPL, you can't distribute the binaries to their source. ---
Um, it will end when they knock it off and leave us alone. When they stop rewriting US law at whim to help their bottom line, when the politicians work for us again, and when they are no longer able to use their lawyers, guns, and money to hurt everyone who doesn't want to be a conforming, obedient little consumer.
It will end when they're not in office anymore. If you have the right to vote, use it. I'm not sure what the Libertarian stance is on copyright, but going by principles I would guess that they consider it one more thing the federal government doesn't have to do. As for Reformists, they'll actually nip the whole copyright problem in the butt since, if I understand their platform correctly, they want the election/governing process to listen to the people, i.e. no more suspicious campaign financing (i.e. bribes, such as Disney + Bono campaign contribution = extended copyright protection) and make it so more than just Republicans and Demonspaw^H^H^H^H^Hcrats can get elected. ---
A while ago I read a story and found this press release. <SARCASM>Suprisingly</SARCASM>, the/. editors declined to post it. Not interesting enough, I guess, but/. is kept in the dark.
Me, I'm not suprised one bit that the merger was called off. I did a search on Daily Yahoo and found this article, too. You'll see that when they negotiated a price, Corel said ``What if it was in stock?'' and Borland said okay, sounds good, but then Corel's stock completely bombed (originally the deal was valued at something like US $1.07 billion and fell down to US $371 million), so Borland (rightly) has doubts. They're getting ripped off and I don't blame them for calling it quits.
Sorry you had to hear about it until after it was too late, but hey, it's slashdot. ---
I'm not sure that recording from a radio is legal. From what I understand it is. It's fair use because the radio station paid royalties to the record labels - they basically paid for your copy. You do not have the right to redistribute copies of something you recorded from the radio, but even then, nobody will really prosecute you unless it's a really large-scale operation. Hell, Metallica hasn't even sued anybody. (insert std. IANAL disclaimer here)
Most radio stations claim their material is copyrighted just like broadcasts on TV do. It is. So is the stuff on TV. Fair use (well, US, anyway) allows you to make copies of it for yourself, but you can't redistribute copies of it. ---
I was at first very upset with you because I disagree with you on nearly every single point. The only point I will concede is that some of these problems relating to MP3 trading shouldn't really have surfaced, though I feel we need to repeal some of the more pro-corporate copyright restrictions rather than just ignore it altogether. However, on every other point I disagree with you on grounds of artistic or legal morality. As someone who feels strongly that copyright law (and the willingness of the public to honor copyright) is beneficial and advantageous to the public good, and as someone who actually makes a living producing copyrighted work (I write software), I was quite obviously angered with this article.
But when looking through the forum I must say, Thank you, Jon! Nobody on/. wants to agree with you. I honestly think this is because the surest sign that some cause people are fighting for was built from mindless propaganda and any campaigns in favor of said cause weren't really thought out is that Jon Katz will speak out in favor of it. The best thing you could have done was take sides with the average copyright infringer because now Slashdot will wake up and realize ``Maybe we should respect copyright. Not only does the GPL depend on copyright law, but Jon Katz thinks it shouldn't be enforced!''
If Metallica hadn't sued Napster (it's the users that infringe on copyright, not the folks that wrote the software), I'd have gone out and bought every one of their CDs. I still won't boycott them, though. To be honest, the only reason Napster is immoral is because most songs traded are copyrighted, but that's only because copyright laws have been changed over the last century to ridiculously extend the lifetime of the [once] temporary copyright monopoly. ---
The geek in me has been wondering for years: Are you a programmer? I ask because in one of your books (Dirk Gently I think) you get into a story about a guy making a BASIC program to determine how to get couch out of the bend in the stairway, afterwhich the program determined it was impossible for it to have gotten stuck there to begin with. You also supposedly worked very closely with the creation of Infocom's rendition of Hitchhiker and then later with Starship Titanic (so much, in fact, with Starship that you asked Terry Jones to write the novel for you). What do you do when you are making these games that keeps you so busy? ---
Forget the BBC movie, I want to know about the other movie that is supposedly going to begin filming any day now. Of course, that has been the rumor for the past... decade is it? What gives? I seem to recall reading an interview elsewhere where you said another movie would be filmed besides the BBC that would (naturally) have nothing to do with any of the preceding four (and in a later interview, after Mostly Harmless five) books. Were those interviews ficticious and you never said that, or will there someday be a real, live, Hollywood version of Hitchhiker? ---
Actually, I believe it's 6 times 9 you're thinking of. Oh, and "Sorry for the inconvenience" was God's final message to his creation, not the significance of 6 x 9 = 42. I won't tell you what the significance is because everyone should read all five books in the trilogy (6 if you count Zaphod's little story). ---
But in the end, is "Bridge Over Troubled Water" a different song when recorded on CD than on cassette? To what extent am I purchasing a particular medium, and to what extent am I trying to hear Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel regardless of medium?
According to my understand, copyright (in pure form, not this wretched substitute we have today) gives no rights to the work itself other than giving you the right to set the terms of distributions. It is the right to produce copies of the work and it is those copies that you have control over. You have the right to copy from your copies when you've paid for it, but if you expend all your copies, you are out of luck and have to buy a new one. I believe the answer to your question would be yes, there is a difference. Copyright applies to the distributed medium (so I would guess it is in this respect that MP3 was found guilty because they distributed their MP3's to users instead of storing copies made from the users' CDs).
Somebody made an anology elsewhere that if you have a book and it gets damaged you have to go buy a new one. You are not allowed to go to the library and copy their copy, even though beforehand you could have at any time made a copy of your own, so in essence I believe it does actually come down to the physical form. Morally, I think it's a gray area, but legally I think that's the way it works and was probably designed that way to close any possible loopholes by eliminating the gray area legally (even if it does still exist morally). ---
Slashdot Mirror
I just got back from a mini-Borcon not too long ago, and I was under the impression that as far as licenscing goes:
IDE/Compiler: Probably a proprietary license. They didn't seem too interested in releasing the source to the compiler or the IDE.
GUI apps: Trying their hardest w/ the licenscing and source distribution to a) make sure the libraries remain standard and under Borland's control, and b) the end-user can still release their programs under the GPL if they wish.
Kernel apps: Use GCC. Delphi/CPPB are for GUI. While you could (probably) use them for command line tools, you stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting your Delphi/CPBB program included in the kernel. They don't want to go in the kernel. They want a standard set of widgets that users can hook into and write programs for.
I was very impressed w/ the Kylix demo. In fact, w/ themes, you have more control over the GUI than you do in Windows. It is very slick. DB support is pretty solid (they configured and compiled a sample database viewer from scratch in under three minutes). I know the developers working w/ Nevrona to design the new Borland internet components (derived from Winshoes) and they're shaping up nicely (they are open source, but probably not GPL). In fact, in the whole presentation, I only saw three bugs: 1 IDE AV, 1 diagram tab that wasn't ported yet, and a case-sensitivity problem (unit named Unit1, saved in unit1.pas).
As far as this being a coup, maybe your avg. Linux user won't jump on this but you can bet IT shops will. Borland's JBuilder is already #1 Java IDE and VB is losing market share to Delphi. Delphi is going cross-platform (they seemed to suggest Mac as being the next target when rattling off about Qt support). Speaking of Qt, there was even talk of purchasing TrollTech in the not-so-distant future.
The primary reason Windows is #1 is because of software availability. Software is available because Windows has better dev tools than *n?x. The way I see it, Kylix is good news for everybody.
---
If you're afraid that people will warp your story, don't tell it to anyone.
(Before you think the following is a flame, please note that it isn't. This is more of an expansion refuting this statement as a bad way of saying a good point. Okay, on to my rant...)
That's exactly the kind of attitude that made copyright law such a good idea. If you want to get ideas to spread, don't tell somebody not to tell his story. That's the exact opposite of the whole free-software philosophy! Free software wants ideas to spread and the community/gift-economy is the incentive. OTOH, copyrighted closed-software uses a monopoly of limited (well, once upon a time) time as a monetary incentive. So both the closed- and open-software models are designed to spread ideas and promote the sciences and useful arts.
Telling somebody to keep their ideas to themselves is elitist and doesn't fit well into any development methodology I can think of.
(See, getting back to what I said earlier, this really sounds like a flame at this point, and I'll admit it kind of is, but read on...)
Really, that's the only way to be sure. Now, I'm pretty sure someone has come up with a similar story before anyways, and maybe that your story is a "warped" story from someone else you've heard. So why worry? What do you lose? Why be afraid over a perfectly natural thing?
This is the part of my post where I concede that you are correct. My main concern is that the previous statement could have been phrased ``That's a good thing! The free spread of information benefits society!'' So now I concede w/ the original point, you can't really control ideas and it's not a very admirable goal IMO. However, you can always use the word ``Official''. Remember, that's how you allow communities to expand on your ideas but you don't necessarily incorporate them into the core of whatever little universe you've created. They're left floating in the realm of ``unofficial''. Worrying about somebody changing something you've made is part of life -- it's part of the spread of ideas, and then there is the point that yeah, it's probably pretty similar to something that's already been done. The only way to see what happens, though, is to put it out there.
---
To start, I have to agree -- I think this kind of license is the way games should be developed. To answer your question, I say AI most definitely goes there because it may be game specific, but it might be useful to others. You know the reaper bot from Quake? Is that best open-source or closed-source? I don't know anybody that would say it's best for games if that source is kept closed. But then, to agree with the above post, that is a tough call.
/redist you may redistribute and falls under the GPL. Anything in other sections is subject to yadda.'' Just to make sure it can exist peacefully w/ the GPL, the engine must be able to run/compile/etc. w/out your game elements.
The only concern I have is how to write such a license, particularly if your artistic expressions are also ``code'', for example, if you have a 3D game with a VRML-based engine. Source-code vs. artwork is fairly simple - you can read source code, you can't read a graphics or sound file. But you can read VRML, even though I think it'd qualify as art. I definitely think that if you use something like MAP files or VMRL, you should include the source (well, with VRML that's kind of a moot point), but I think that should also fall under the artistic part of the license.
You could always do what Microsoft does w/ Direct X -- classify a certain branch of the game source REDISTRIBUTABLE. The rest belongs to you, and the engine has to be able to exist without your stuff. If somebody changes it, it must behave just like yours. For example,
mygame/bin (not redist)
mygame/mymod (not redist)
mygame/mymod/source/art (not redist)
mygame/mymod/source/sound (not redist)
mygame/redist/engine/source (redist)
mygame/redist/engine/bin (redist)
mygame/redist/engine/lib (redist)
mygame/redist/engine/install (redist)
...etc...
I think this would avoid ambiguities in the license. Just specify ``Anything in the path
I dunno, I've just always wanted to make a game, but I like the principles of open source and I've been trying to figure out a way to benefit the games community but still be able to make money. If I could do it for a living, I would.
---
First of all, the courts are pretty good about making fair decisions. Everybody complains the system's screwed up, but the courts are actually the best defenders of your freedom. Either way, though, it's bound to be good news, because there are two scenarios I can see:
1) GPL wins - it becomes legally proven that it's a valid license. For the consumer (or even businesses), GPL'ed software is much better than typical closed-source licenses, so it gains more ground.
2) GPL loses - the court sites the Macy's case, stating that software licenses aren't allowed without a signature and that the First Sale doctrine applies. This means that while the GPL loses all it's power, it's also pretty much lost any reason to exist -- mission accomplished.
Either way, it's good for the end-user. In fact, I honestly think I'd rather see a First Sale ruling rather than a ruling that proved the validity of the GPL because then consumers don't have to worry about licenses because now case-law would guarantee what rights you have and don't have. Sure the GPL would be meaningless, but you know what, at least all the other software out there is now treated just like a book or a movie or anyother copyrighted work. While I don't agree with many of RMS's ideals, I would like to see a world without shrinkwrap software licenses.
---
...you're right, dammit! We have to let them know we're not gonna take it! We need to send them a message, and there's only one way to do that.
Boycott Pennsylvania!
Boycott them til they go out of business. Money grubbing bastards have no respect for the consumer.
---
If you don't like the ruling, protest. Fill up the courts, dammit. If you can do it, register confusing names and parodies the sites. Then at the bottom of the page, link to somewhere where you tell everybody 1) the domain is not for sale and never will be, 2) the page is a parody of the another and link to the original, 3) why you registered it (in protest of BS trademark rulings) and link to the Boston article. Oh, yeah, and make it truly non-profit - no banner ads or order forms or anything. Pay out of pocket for your site. Teach these liberal, God-hating vegans that you won't stand for it!
Hypocritical Oath: I hereby affirm that I will always give advice that I would never myself take. I have better things to do than get sued and frankly the ruling doesn't affect me right now. I think it's because I'm lazy, but that won't stop me from telling everybody else to get off their asses and do something.
---
I read somewhere that that doesn't really hold up in court that well because it's pretty weak evidence. Basically, the mail-yourself thing isn't really sufficient evidence (you can open and reseal letters, for one). There was something about having to get a notary public to verify your letter to yourself was legit -- maybe a before and after (something like notorize s/he saw you seal the thing in the envelope and mail it to yourself and then notorize again that you received it in the mail unopened). Bear in mind though, I'm no lawyer. If you want to know for real what the cheapest, safest way to copyright something is, you can either go w/ the copyright office or talk to a copyright attorney. Sorry. Them's the breaks.
---
Imagine ten different servers, each with a mathematically random file available for download. The files are named by letters: A through J. If you download and XOR A, D, E and I, you get a Metallica MP3. A ^ D ^ F gives you the latest chapter to a Stephen King novel. C ^ E ^ F gives you the recipe to Coca-Cola. Another dozen combinations give you a dozen different files.
Thank you for a good explanation. I haven't been bothering to explain because you're doing a good job.
I think, though, one thing the author of the website linked to was saying is that you also want to always make sure you use those pads in protected speech. In your example, all those pads could be deleted because all the combinations you mentioned were illegal. However, if for example, A^B^C=The Bible, B^C^D=Hamlet, C^D^E=Gulliver's Travels, then it's slightly different. None of these can be restricted (well, AFAIK - I'll get into the legal side in a bit). If A^D^E = a Metallica MP3, you can't delete it without deleting The Bible, Hamlet and Gulliver's Travels along with it. All in all, a very good plan.
Constitutionally, it's very sound. I guess at this point however I should mention that legally (remember law and constitution don't always go hand in hand), random data is not protected speech. IANAL but I can tell you this is the law. Additionally, MP3's are not human-readable either, so they are not protected speech, but they can be copyrighted. In other words, you can't copy them freely but they can be freely censored. I'd say there's probably some pretty strong precedent that Metallica could very easily force you to delete the Bible, Hamlet and Gulliver's Travels. It's shaky legal ground because you can argue that if copyright law applies, then so does free speech, but in this case your protected speech might not be protected. I think the way it's set up though gives it a bit of strength because there are no dates -- you can't tell if Hamlet or Gulliver's Travels were generated before or after the Metallica MP3. By removing it, you are censoring more than one author.
I guess the important thing to make this work is to always make sure if you post something controversial that you post it in such a way you can't remove it without deleting something typically protected by the First Amendment. It'd be a very interesting court case and if somebody does decide to test the legality of this kind of system (though I don't suggest you do anything illegal), I would like to see what the courts have to say.
---
If he had bought the movie, on tape or whatever, it would be a different story.
I know the discussion's over, but as I was browsing through it, I thought I'd mention that, while I have no professional basis in copyright law whatsoever, I got the impression from the recent RIAA vs. my.mp3.com case that the source of the material is crucial to determining whether or not infringement occurred. For example, had my.mp3.com allowed the users to upload the tracks from their CD's to mp3.com's servers, where it was converted to mp3 and could only be retrieved by the user, then mp3.com would not have infringed on copyright. However, because my.mp3.com only verified the user had the song and then let them listen to mp3s of mp3.com's copies, it was infringement.
In other words, the copy you use must be made from your copy -- you don't own the right to access a copy (i.e. it doesn't matter if Valenti made the tape), you own a copy and it's yours to do with as you please (except distributing copies to others).
Ok, back to Valenti - if he downloaded the film from John Q. Pirate (provided John isn't the copyright holder and isn't authorized to distribute the film), John Q. Pirate definitely broke the law. Infringement definitely occurred because opyright applies only to the physical copy itself, not to the IP -- if you scratch your CD, you can't copy a friends, but you could have copied your own. (Of course, if you look at the Metallica vs. Napster community thing, where Metallica only banned users that allowed others to download copyrighted Metallica songs from them, and not those that actually downloaded the songs, I don't think recieving unauthorized a copy of a copyrighted work is infringement. It's distributing copies that's bad. So if this is indeed the case, Valenti (or whoever downloaded the movie) didn't break the law, the guy that made the movie available did. At least, that's my understanding.)
---
Classic interpreted BASIC is interactive. You get instant feedback when you do something wrong. In fact, you can type in a command and watch what it does at any time. There is no compiling, no linking, no libraries, no GUIs, and no lists of cryptic error messages. You don't have to master a complicated editor, and there a no makefiles.
This is absolutely correct and is a benefit of being interpreted, not of being BASIC. If you can find another better structured language that is interactive, all the better (I cannot suggest Java). Pascal, though, is pretty flexible but has all the traps to make sure you don't shoot yourself in the foot. Yeah, it doesn't have the benefit of being quite so interactive, but hey, kids pick up faster than adults. Get a good IDE with a decent debugger (IDE debuggers give it interactivity) and they'll be all set. I was using the QBasic & QuickBasic IDE's without a problem and the Turbo Pascal and Turbo C IDE's were no problem either (Borland also has a good habit of providing very thorough help files, better than anything I've seen for BASIC).
Once they understand variables, operators and their precendences, file I/O, etc. they can graduate to a better language.
This I have to disagree on as far as BASIC being the best language. This is the area where BASIC starts to lose ground and why a language like Pascal is better -- for specifically this reason. Simple I/O (i.e. text via stdio) and interactivity, yes, BASIC is great, but if you ever want to go beyond that, use another language. My experience has been that Pascal is the best instructional language there is.
I guess what I've seen is kids that use BASIC tend to learn less about programming. I know that was the case for me too - the jump from BASIC to C was horribly difficult because I hadn't learned programming, I'd learned BASIC. After learning to program (C), I can pick up new languages much faster. I also noticed that BASIC is a better language after learning a real language. Besides, this is kids we're talking about. They will probably want to program graphics and if they do, a compiled language is the way to go.
Now to retract some of what I've said: BASIC would probably be acceptable to teach kids (for fun) if 1) it can be compiled, 2) the kids are taught about SUB and FUNCTION. Do that and BASIC would probably be okay, but only for a little while. It's too easy to learn bad programming techniques with BASIC.
---
Delphi is close enough to Pascal that it might be good - structered language, some OOP.
Actually, Delphi probably isn't a good first language for precicely the opposite reason that BASIC sucks -- Delphi is too object oriented for beginners to understand basic program flow. My vote is for Turbo Pascal 7.0. That is the absolute best teaching language there is, and IIRC, it was originally designed as an instructional language -- teach kids about structured programming, functions, OOP, memory management, disk access, etc. Go with TP 7.0. It's free, too. You should be able to find it and other older, free programming stuff here (apologies - couldn't verify the link because their DNS appears to be acting up).
---
I started on BASIC and it messed me up for a while. BASIC is designed to be easy, Pascal is designed to teach. In other words, BASIC is for people that don't want to learn structured programming - they want to get it done w/ the least amount of learning. In my book, that's a bad way to learn to program.
Go with Object Pascal - it's structured, object oriented and is not as complicated and mind-warping as BASIC or windows programming, and less prone to early programming errors than C. Eventually you can move them on (pref. to C/C++ and then *nix) and then they'll be able to tackle what they want to. Basically, when teaching somebody programming, I think the best way is to teach them to learn. I think Turbo Pascal 7.0 was the best tool for learning programming I've seen (and used). After that, move them to C because C is the greatest programming language in existence.
---
I don't think this is either letter.
/. reporting every bit of the legal back-and-forth (lawyers don't like that for some reason), so I'd guess every so often they'll prepare something suitable to the public that will keep us interested without giving away all their secrets. Hmm... Well, they are in a tight situation so I hope they keep us posted nonetheless.
When I really actually think about it, I think you're right. Andover's lawyers probably wouldn't like
---
The letter they sent is probably the worst legal document that I have ever seen written.
/. doesn't look evil, and 2) make MS's lawyers think twice about what will happen if they pursue this. This letter doesn't address MS's claims and it doesn't have to. That's the next one. (Or so I would assume. If this is the second letter, well, good luck /. because you will need it.)
You're right. However, this one doesn't quite count. Microsoft asked for two letters - one acknowledging they received the letter, the second actually addressing the issue. This letter accomplished two things: 1) good PR, so
---
the binaries to their source
oops. that should be source to their binaries. heh.
---
Actually, this has been standard for a long time. If it is new, it's probably just reiterating what's been their policy all along (although I admit it does sound kinda fishy). I think since they started Kylix, they may have found themselves a little nervous about the GPL which says no closed library dependencies. Well, they rely heavily on something called the Visual Component Library which is a kick-ass little system involving what they call Borland Package Libraries which can be integrated/linked at design-time (RAD), compile-time (static link) and/or run-time (dynamic link). Anyway, these BPL's contain the VCL and these BPLs are closed. Basically, this says that those compiled, standard BPL's are theirs, not yours, so by using their tools, you agree to abide by their rules, even if it means no GPL. They're just trying to beat the GPL to the punch. (I won't comment on their tactics, just tellin' it like it is.) Anyway, I think this applies more to the VCL/RTL packages (REDISTRIBUTABLES) & source than it does to your program.
It breaks down like this:
Link to VCL at compile time: OK.
Link to VCL at run time: OK.
Use VCL at design time: OBVIOUSLY OK (that's how RAD works).
Distribute unmodified VCL for free (beer) with your program: OK.
Change VCL and link at compile-time: OK.
---
Distribute VCL source: NO.
Distribute RTL source: NO.
Distribute modified VCL (change VCL and/or RTL, and link at run-time): NO.
That's what this license says. There are certain tricks and exceptions that are allowed or that they don't really care about, but this is basically the rules. I'd guess what they're saying here is even if you release something under the GPL, you can't distribute the binaries to their source.
---
Um, it will end when they knock it off and leave us alone. When they stop rewriting US law at whim to help their bottom line, when the politicians work for us again, and when they are no longer able to use their lawyers, guns, and money to hurt everyone who doesn't want to be a conforming, obedient little consumer.
It will end when they're not in office anymore. If you have the right to vote, use it. I'm not sure what the Libertarian stance is on copyright, but going by principles I would guess that they consider it one more thing the federal government doesn't have to do. As for Reformists, they'll actually nip the whole copyright problem in the butt since, if I understand their platform correctly, they want the election/governing process to listen to the people, i.e. no more suspicious campaign financing (i.e. bribes, such as Disney + Bono campaign contribution = extended copyright protection) and make it so more than just Republicans and Demonspaw^H^H^H^H^Hcrats can get elected.
---
A while ago I read a story and found this press release. <SARCASM>Suprisingly</SARCASM>, the /. editors declined to post it. Not interesting enough, I guess, but /. is kept in the dark.
Me, I'm not suprised one bit that the merger was called off. I did a search on Daily Yahoo and found this article, too. You'll see that when they negotiated a price, Corel said ``What if it was in stock?'' and Borland said okay, sounds good, but then Corel's stock completely bombed (originally the deal was valued at something like US $1.07 billion and fell down to US $371 million), so Borland (rightly) has doubts. They're getting ripped off and I don't blame them for calling it quits.
Sorry you had to hear about it until after it was too late, but hey, it's slashdot.
---
Can anyone really answer for me what the net gain of all of these "big science" projects are for us, the general public?
That's easy! Tang.
---
I'm not sure that recording from a radio is legal.
From what I understand it is. It's fair use because the radio station paid royalties to the record labels - they basically paid for your copy. You do not have the right to redistribute copies of something you recorded from the radio, but even then, nobody will really prosecute you unless it's a really large-scale operation. Hell, Metallica hasn't even sued anybody. (insert std. IANAL disclaimer here)
Most radio stations claim their material is copyrighted just like broadcasts on TV do.
It is. So is the stuff on TV. Fair use (well, US, anyway) allows you to make copies of it for yourself, but you can't redistribute copies of it.
---
I was at first very upset with you because I disagree with you on nearly every single point. The only point I will concede is that some of these problems relating to MP3 trading shouldn't really have surfaced, though I feel we need to repeal some of the more pro-corporate copyright restrictions rather than just ignore it altogether. However, on every other point I disagree with you on grounds of artistic or legal morality. As someone who feels strongly that copyright law (and the willingness of the public to honor copyright) is beneficial and advantageous to the public good, and as someone who actually makes a living producing copyrighted work (I write software), I was quite obviously angered with this article.
/. wants to agree with you. I honestly think this is because the surest sign that some cause people are fighting for was built from mindless propaganda and any campaigns in favor of said cause weren't really thought out is that Jon Katz will speak out in favor of it. The best thing you could have done was take sides with the average copyright infringer because now Slashdot will wake up and realize ``Maybe we should respect copyright. Not only does the GPL depend on copyright law, but Jon Katz thinks it shouldn't be enforced!''
But when looking through the forum I must say, Thank you, Jon! Nobody on
If Metallica hadn't sued Napster (it's the users that infringe on copyright, not the folks that wrote the software), I'd have gone out and bought every one of their CDs. I still won't boycott them, though. To be honest, the only reason Napster is immoral is because most songs traded are copyrighted, but that's only because copyright laws have been changed over the last century to ridiculously extend the lifetime of the [once] temporary copyright monopoly.
---
The geek in me has been wondering for years: Are you a programmer? I ask because in one of your books (Dirk Gently I think) you get into a story about a guy making a BASIC program to determine how to get couch out of the bend in the stairway, afterwhich the program determined it was impossible for it to have gotten stuck there to begin with. You also supposedly worked very closely with the creation of Infocom's rendition of Hitchhiker and then later with Starship Titanic (so much, in fact, with Starship that you asked Terry Jones to write the novel for you). What do you do when you are making these games that keeps you so busy?
---
Forget the BBC movie, I want to know about the other movie that is supposedly going to begin filming any day now. Of course, that has been the rumor for the past... decade is it? What gives? I seem to recall reading an interview elsewhere where you said another movie would be filmed besides the BBC that would (naturally) have nothing to do with any of the preceding four (and in a later interview, after Mostly Harmless five) books. Were those interviews ficticious and you never said that, or will there someday be a real, live, Hollywood version of Hitchhiker?
---
Actually, I believe it's 6 times 9 you're thinking of. Oh, and "Sorry for the inconvenience" was God's final message to his creation, not the significance of 6 x 9 = 42. I won't tell you what the significance is because everyone should read all five books in the trilogy (6 if you count Zaphod's little story).
---
But in the end, is "Bridge Over Troubled Water" a different song when recorded on CD than on cassette? To what extent am I purchasing a particular medium, and to what extent am I trying to hear Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel regardless of medium?
According to my understand, copyright (in pure form, not this wretched substitute we have today) gives no rights to the work itself other than giving you the right to set the terms of distributions. It is the right to produce copies of the work and it is those copies that you have control over. You have the right to copy from your copies when you've paid for it, but if you expend all your copies, you are out of luck and have to buy a new one. I believe the answer to your question would be yes, there is a difference. Copyright applies to the distributed medium (so I would guess it is in this respect that MP3 was found guilty because they distributed their MP3's to users instead of storing copies made from the users' CDs).
Somebody made an anology elsewhere that if you have a book and it gets damaged you have to go buy a new one. You are not allowed to go to the library and copy their copy, even though beforehand you could have at any time made a copy of your own, so in essence I believe it does actually come down to the physical form. Morally, I think it's a gray area, but legally I think that's the way it works and was probably designed that way to close any possible loopholes by eliminating the gray area legally (even if it does still exist morally).
---