I wish Apple would release OS X for white boxes too... or even get with IBM-I-mean-Lenovo and do another mashup like the Powerbook 2400 so I can have a decent laptop running a decent OS instead of having to pick one or the other.
But now we're agreed on that... what's your point? Two wrongs make a right? The shoe's on the other foot? Piracy is OK? What...?
My assessment of UAC is that it's a good idea that is badly implemented, even after recent refinements. I think it will have the opposite of its intended effect on many Vista desktops, where it will deaden users to security risks by asking them too frequently whether they're sure an activity is something they really want to do or allow.
I disagree. It's a bad idea that's badly implemented... and it's not a new idea. Windows has been popping up "I'm about to do something that might be stupid, is that OK?" or "Which stupid mistake do you want me to make now?" dialogs for years now, and the biggest effect they have is to train people to automatically approve security dialogs. As a system administrator I had the same people come to me multiple times saying "Um, Peter, I just clicked 'open' on that popup again and I think I have a virus".
Here's a helpful suggestion for developers. Anytime you're thinking of popping up a dialog like that, ask yourself "how can I make it so the user can *always* cancel the operation", and if there's a way... do that instead. For example, instead of asking the user "Should I automatically open this file you just downloaded in NEW-APPLICATION", consider the possibilities of not automatically opening files at all... give the user a better tool for managing downloads instead.
A man is flying in a hot air balloon and realizes he is lost. He reduces height and spots a man down below. He lowers the balloon further and shouts, "Excuse me, can you tell me where I am?"
The man below says, "Yes, you're in a hot air balloon, hovering 30 feet above this field."
"You must be an engineer", says the balloonist.
"I am", replies the man. "How did you know?"
"Well", says the balloonist, "everything you have told me is technically correct, but it's of no use to anyone."
Technically, since Apple doesn't do the encryption until after download, it would be trivial to implement.
The problem isn't implementing it, the problem is that unless the Big Four labels go along with it there's a huge risk and no benefit. One of Apple's "lines in the sand" for the iTunes Music Store right from the start was that all music would be available on the same terms: you can play ALL the songs in the store on 5 computers, you can burn them ALL to disc, they ALL cost the same. Making an exception for a few small labels, or even a lot of them, may violate their existing contract with the big four and would certainly hurt them when they have to renegotiate.
And there's no need: eMusic.com already fills that market, and it's cheaper than the iTunes store!
But wait, there's more! Let's complete the joke:
The man below says, "You must be in management."
"I am", replies the balloonist, "but how did you know?"
"Well", says the man, "you don't know where you are, or where you're going, but you expect me to be able to help. You're in the same position you were before we met, but now it's my fault. "
Nah, Jon, I'm in the same position I was before, and it's not a problem, so it's nobody's fault. See, I'm one of the people who's supposed to be locked in to the iPod.
I've bought 286 tracks from the iTunes Music Store, plus a dozen TV shows. That's over $300, and I'm not locked in at all. I've played this music on an iPod Shuffle, an HP Pocket PC, and a cheap Magic Star MP3 player. I have done this using nothing but Apple's own software, unmodified, using instructions provided by Apple on their website.
Yes, technically, I've lost a fraction of the sound quality by remixing their old ad campaign into "mix, burn, rip", but who cares? Buying music where absolute fidelity matters from the iTMS is daft... you've accepted a loss in quality just by buying it in lossy-compressed format to begin with. I buy classical music on CD, and I don't listen to it in a noisy office through tiny earbuds.
The real lock-in for iPods isn't the music, it's the accessories. Apple's changed the iPod form factor and connectors far less often than their competitors, so there's easily a dozen times as many accessories available for the iPod as for any other MP3 player... probably than all the others put together.
Right now, I don't have an MP3 player. My daughter's iPod Mini broke, so I gave her my shuffle. I'm looking at new MP3 players now, and right now I'm inclined to get something other than an iPod. The new shuffle looks sweet, but I don't like the click-wheel on the higher end iPods. If I decide to stick with a flash based player I'll probably get an iPod Shuffle, but the Toshiba Gigabeat (the real thing, not Microsoft's rebadged "Zune") looks pretty good.
The last x86-family processor that did not emulate x86 code on a "RISC core" was the 80386. All Intel and AMD chips that run x86 code since the 486 have emulated the x86 instruction set using just-in-time translation into RISC or VLIW opcodes.
So if this license is read literally, it means the last x86-based CPU it's legal to run Vista on is the 80386, and Vista won't run on that.
That doesn't stop the Zune from having its own DRM
I'm sorry, that's a complete non-sequiter. How exactly does another company doing a DRM scheme that only works on a single device serve as evidence that Apple didn't have to restrict their DRM to a single device? Particularly when that device is from a company that has built heavy-duty DRM into their operating system.
doesnt stop sonos from using DRMed music from Rhapsody
Rhapsody on Mac only seems to be available as a web browser plug-in. The Rhapsody software itself is only available on Windows. Presumably it's part of the same Microsoft strong DRM ecosystem that Apple has remained outside of.
And yet the labels also have similar contracts with Microsoft for their DRM, and all the manufacturers of players that play it.
Microsoft has an aggressive DRM scheme that only works on Windows, includes kernel components (and in Vista, signed kernel components), and involves giving Windows Media Player more rights on your computer than Local Administrator. Apple could certainly implement something similar, if they wanted to restrict Fairplay to Macintosh.
I'm not familiar with pyMusique so I won't comment on that, but I do think you're perhaps a wee bit off in the reason whythere's no iTunes for Linux.
I see no DRM-related reason Apple couldn't produce iTMS for Linux right now. The DRM in iTunes doesn't rest on any special capabilities of the XNU/Darwin kernel and doesn't to my knowledge use any of the hooks Microsoft put in Windows to implement strong DRM in Windows Media Player.
I highly doubt Apple will release a Linux iTunes client, as they want to promote themselves as the alternative to Windows
And yet they provide a Windows client.
They didn't originally. The reason they made one was that for every Mac user buying an iPod there were at least 10 Windows users NOT buying iPods.
But for Mac user buying an iPod there's maybe, oh, 1/10th of a Linux user not buying one: not only are there fewer Linux desktops, but there are even fewer Linux-exclusive desktops, and after the Intel switch and Boot Camp and Parallels Desktop and VMWare Fusion it's hard to imagine anybody at Apple is unaware of the workarounds available to their friends in the Linux community.:)
Add that to the fragmentation in Linux and in Linux sound systems, and there's no reason for them to do more than glance at the risks and rewards and walk away.
While the majority of music sold from iTMS must have DRM for contractual reasons, not all of it does.
Where were you when all the buzz and drama about iTunes applying the same terms for all songs was going on? Jobs has repeatedly insisted on contracts that apply exactly the same terms for all songs, regardless of the source. It may not be possible for him to set aside this part of the contract for a small label without violating his contracts with the large ones, but even if it is... it would be extremely unwise for him to hand the big four a wedge to attack the flat rate.
Now it may be that you don't care about all the songs being 99c. That's fine, you disagree with Jobs on that point. The thing is, disagreement doesn't imply deception. It's possible for you and Steve jobs to have differing opinions on the importance of some point without either of you being a liar.
Did you RTFA? Their contract with the labels obligates them to have enough control over the client software to close any exploit within a certain number of weeks.
How many of the "I don't want to give any money to the RIAA mafia" and "the RIAA screws artists" crowd have sent their favorite band a few dollar bills in an envelope for the non-DRM encumbered music they downloaded of a torrent?
I've paid full price for every song I've downloaded from a torrent.
And I've also spent more money at eMusic than iTunes.
Jobs has refused to work with companies like Sonos, disallowing them from playing DRMed music from the itunes store.
Did you RTFA? Not only was this point acknowledged there, but it was addressed at length.
However, a key provision of our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store. [...] Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies.
Now it may be that you've got a reason to believe that Jobs is being economical with the truth, but if so simply restating the point does nothing to explain that reason.
Apple went out of its way bolster DRM and lock-in to iPod+iTunes for its own reasons, not just the music industry's.
Apple has definitely made the iPod and iTunes more limited than they should be, and while I have some quibbles with some of your points I'll agree for the sake of discussion that they're to lock you in to iPod and iTunes.
However, I don't see how any of it bolsters DRM. Your fifth (unnumbered) point, "Why has Apple restricted all this functionality for non-DRM files?", is key: these restrictions are unrelated to DRM, and aren't any indication that Apple is trying to bolster DRM. Steve Jobs position on DRM is already well-established.
That's a different situation. If the entity that owns the patents is also the one distributing, then section 7 of the GPL already covers that, and the patent protection is passed on to whoever recievers the code, directly or indirectly.
I don't see that. All that means is that if Microsoft wants to go after GCC's use of some patented compiler technique, all they have to do is stop distributing GCC with Interix, and require people to use Visual Studio to build code for it. There's no GPLed software they're shipping they can't afford to turf if it's worth it. This isn't about anything but revenue for Microsoft, they're not stupid - they see the end of the Windows cash cow coming as well as anyone else - and they want to establish that their patent portfolio has value. They've got a trickle coming in from flash drive makers, now they're trying to strongarm a few more companies.
The GPL allows for "mere aggregation" of closed source and GPL software.
Yes, I know. That loophole is explicitly in the GPL because it wouldn't have been accepted without it. That doesn't mean that RMS approves of it, or sees it as anything but a tactical concession. I've heard him say as much, more than once.
That was a suggestion that if you provide a web service using GPL software, you should also provide the source code.
And there's also the argument that a web service with a published API makes programs that use that API a derived work. And that brings up the whole API copyright issue.
The GPL *is* forking.
The GPL *has* forked. There's the LGPL, and a variety of exceptions that various open source programs apply alongside the GPL that have similar effects. There's passive exceptions, too, where software creators simply decline to enforce aspects of the GPL they disagree with, and dual-licensed software. If the GPL3 explicitly closes more "loopholes", it's goingto fork more.
But it sounds to me like you don't fully understand the GPL
"I don't agree with the official narrative" doesn't mean "I don't understand it".:)
OK, here's maybe a better appproach to the same point:
Apple made a huge deal about having the same rules for all music in iTMS. If they make an exception for some independant or some small label then they weaken their case for keeping the contract the same when time comes to renew it with the big labels. Podcasts, though, are a new service. They can release them without DRM, or with DRM, because they're not on the big flat-rate contract they fought so hard for.
So there's a big downside and not much upside to cutting a special deal with some indie musician or small label, especially when eMusic is handling that part of the market so effectively.
So why do they go to the South Pole, if there is no business plan? Research. So where do they get the money to do research? Probably a government research grant.
I don't get your point here. The question isn't 'why go to the moon', it's 'how to go to the moon'. Bringing up "the business plan" for going to the moon is a complete red herring.
OK, so how do I buy a vehicle to take me to the moon?
You contract for the vehicle and the launch services from private companies, just like the DoD does when they want a new fighter plane, or how NASA does for the components for the shuttle. The companies that build the components for the shuttle are perfectly capable of taking on more of the job, they just prefer not to when NASA's happy to take the risk and give them the rewards anyway... private companies aren't crooks nor knights-errant... they're just not stupid.
The DoD typically puts out contracts for multiple vehicles, and picks the best one. It's not always perfect, there have been notable screwups, but the result has been that the DoD has had launch vehicles available when NASA hasn't. And NASA has been able to use those launch vehicles where they don't need a heavy launcher... even for the early manned flights.
There's no reason that NASA couldn't put out contracts (not a prize, a real contract with deadlines and milestones and partial payments) for vehicles meeting their requirements. It wouldn't help them build empires, but it'd build the space station.
Another way to get an ISS vehicle is to just announce that you will give a billion dollars to anyone who can provide that vehicle.
No, that's how you divert attention from your screwed up policies.
This really isn't free enterprise yet.
I didn't use those words, I said "private companies".
The Novell deal, while legal, goes against the spirit of the GPL, because they have negotiated a patent deal with a third party, but only for only their own customers.
Microsoft ships GPLed software alongside all KINDS of non-GPL-ed programs that are only available for their own customers, and Microsoft (obviously) also "protects" their customers from all those same patents.
Apple ships GPLed software alongside all KINDS of non-GPL-ed programs that are only available for their own customers, and Apple's APSL provides patent protection for Apple and Apple's customers that's not extended to third parties.
The GPL 3 will fix this problem by ensuring that any patent deals must be applied to anyone who receives the code (customers or not).
Will it also remove the "bundling" loophole that makes commercial software development alongside GPLed software possible in the first place? I hear they want to go after people who use GPLed software to provide services on the Internet, so I guess that'd be consistent with their aims. How about the loophole that lets Red Hat lock customers in to their pay updates? How about proprietary configuration tools for Linux? Are they going to try and kill binary drivers as well? What's so special about this supposed violation of the "spirit" of the GPL?
It's sounding more and more like it's time to fork the GPL.
"When we first went to talk to these record companies -- you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content.
What's new is this amazingly efficient distribution system for stolen property called the Internet -- and no one's gonna shut down the Internet. And it only takes one stolen copy to be on the Internet. And the way we expressed it to them is: Pick one lock -- open every door. It only takes one person to pick a lock. Worst case: Somebody just takes the analog outputs of their CD player and rerecords it -- puts it on the Internet. You'll never stop that. So what you have to do is compete with it." -- Steve Jobs
Second, he gives an argument against licensing FairPlay to other vendors that I hadn't heard or thought of before
Yes, that was interesting: if their contract with the labels requires that kind of control, then they can't legally open up Fairplay and keep most of the music in iTMS available.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish Apple would release OS X for white boxes too... or even get with IBM-I-mean-Lenovo and do another mashup like the Powerbook 2400 so I can have a decent laptop running a decent OS instead of having to pick one or the other.
But now we're agreed on that... what's your point? Two wrongs make a right? The shoe's on the other foot? Piracy is OK? What...?
I disagree. It's a bad idea that's badly implemented... and it's not a new idea. Windows has been popping up "I'm about to do something that might be stupid, is that OK?" or "Which stupid mistake do you want me to make now?" dialogs for years now, and the biggest effect they have is to train people to automatically approve security dialogs. As a system administrator I had the same people come to me multiple times saying "Um, Peter, I just clicked 'open' on that popup again and I think I have a virus".
Here's a helpful suggestion for developers. Anytime you're thinking of popping up a dialog like that, ask yourself "how can I make it so the user can *always* cancel the operation", and if there's a way... do that instead. For example, instead of asking the user "Should I automatically open this file you just downloaded in NEW-APPLICATION", consider the possibilities of not automatically opening files at all... give the user a better tool for managing downloads instead.
Oh, and Mac users shouldn't feel smug about this one.
You think journalists make the big bucks, do you?
http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/W indows%20Vista_Home%20Basic_English_2cd69850-7680- 4987-8b1e-59a3d405c074.pdf
Are you the same AC pointing out that microcose is software? :)
Jon's position reminds me of an old joke:
A man is flying in a hot air balloon and realizes he is lost. He reduces height and spots a man down below. He lowers the balloon further and shouts, "Excuse me, can you tell me where I am?"
The man below says, "Yes, you're in a hot air balloon, hovering 30 feet above this field."
"You must be an engineer", says the balloonist.
"I am", replies the man. "How did you know?"
"Well", says the balloonist, "everything you have told me is technically correct, but it's of no use to anyone."
Technically, since Apple doesn't do the encryption until after download, it would be trivial to implement.
The problem isn't implementing it, the problem is that unless the Big Four labels go along with it there's a huge risk and no benefit. One of Apple's "lines in the sand" for the iTunes Music Store right from the start was that all music would be available on the same terms: you can play ALL the songs in the store on 5 computers, you can burn them ALL to disc, they ALL cost the same. Making an exception for a few small labels, or even a lot of them, may violate their existing contract with the big four and would certainly hurt them when they have to renegotiate.
And there's no need: eMusic.com already fills that market, and it's cheaper than the iTunes store!
But wait, there's more! Let's complete the joke:
The man below says, "You must be in management."
"I am", replies the balloonist, "but how did you know?"
"Well", says the man, "you don't know where you are, or where you're going, but you expect me to be able to help. You're in the same position you were before we met, but now it's my fault. "
Nah, Jon, I'm in the same position I was before, and it's not a problem, so it's nobody's fault. See, I'm one of the people who's supposed to be locked in to the iPod.
I've bought 286 tracks from the iTunes Music Store, plus a dozen TV shows. That's over $300, and I'm not locked in at all. I've played this music on an iPod Shuffle, an HP Pocket PC, and a cheap Magic Star MP3 player. I have done this using nothing but Apple's own software, unmodified, using instructions provided by Apple on their website.
Yes, technically, I've lost a fraction of the sound quality by remixing their old ad campaign into "mix, burn, rip", but who cares? Buying music where absolute fidelity matters from the iTMS is daft... you've accepted a loss in quality just by buying it in lossy-compressed format to begin with. I buy classical music on CD, and I don't listen to it in a noisy office through tiny earbuds.
The real lock-in for iPods isn't the music, it's the accessories. Apple's changed the iPod form factor and connectors far less often than their competitors, so there's easily a dozen times as many accessories available for the iPod as for any other MP3 player... probably than all the others put together.
Right now, I don't have an MP3 player. My daughter's iPod Mini broke, so I gave her my shuffle. I'm looking at new MP3 players now, and right now I'm inclined to get something other than an iPod. The new shuffle looks sweet, but I don't like the click-wheel on the higher end iPods. If I decide to stick with a flash based player I'll probably get an iPod Shuffle, but the Toshiba Gigabeat (the real thing, not Microsoft's rebadged "Zune") looks pretty good.
The last x86-family processor that did not emulate x86 code on a "RISC core" was the 80386. All Intel and AMD chips that run x86 code since the 486 have emulated the x86 instruction set using just-in-time translation into RISC or VLIW opcodes.
So if this license is read literally, it means the last x86-based CPU it's legal to run Vista on is the 80386, and Vista won't run on that.
Do they have Vista on the Itanium yet?
or b)do office work or run some proprietary Windows only software, in which case they'll more likely than not be running Vista Business.
*whack*
Have a clue: "run some proprietary Windows only software" is not equivalent to "do office work", and does not imply "running Vista Business".
That doesn't stop the Zune from having its own DRM
I'm sorry, that's a complete non-sequiter. How exactly does another company doing a DRM scheme that only works on a single device serve as evidence that Apple didn't have to restrict their DRM to a single device? Particularly when that device is from a company that has built heavy-duty DRM into their operating system.
doesnt stop sonos from using DRMed music from Rhapsody
Rhapsody on Mac only seems to be available as a web browser plug-in. The Rhapsody software itself is only available on Windows. Presumably it's part of the same Microsoft strong DRM ecosystem that Apple has remained outside of.
And yet the labels also have similar contracts with Microsoft for their DRM, and all the manufacturers of players that play it.
Microsoft has an aggressive DRM scheme that only works on Windows, includes kernel components (and in Vista, signed kernel components), and involves giving Windows Media Player more rights on your computer than Local Administrator. Apple could certainly implement something similar, if they wanted to restrict Fairplay to Macintosh.
I'm not familiar with pyMusique so I won't comment on that, but I do think you're perhaps a wee bit off in the reason whythere's no iTunes for Linux.
:)
I see no DRM-related reason Apple couldn't produce iTMS for Linux right now. The DRM in iTunes doesn't rest on any special capabilities of the XNU/Darwin kernel and doesn't to my knowledge use any of the hooks Microsoft put in Windows to implement strong DRM in Windows Media Player.
I highly doubt Apple will release a Linux iTunes client, as they want to promote themselves as the alternative to Windows
And yet they provide a Windows client.
They didn't originally. The reason they made one was that for every Mac user buying an iPod there were at least 10 Windows users NOT buying iPods.
But for Mac user buying an iPod there's maybe, oh, 1/10th of a Linux user not buying one: not only are there fewer Linux desktops, but there are even fewer Linux-exclusive desktops, and after the Intel switch and Boot Camp and Parallels Desktop and VMWare Fusion it's hard to imagine anybody at Apple is unaware of the workarounds available to their friends in the Linux community.
Add that to the fragmentation in Linux and in Linux sound systems, and there's no reason for them to do more than glance at the risks and rewards and walk away.
While the majority of music sold from iTMS must have DRM for contractual reasons, not all of it does.
Where were you when all the buzz and drama about iTunes applying the same terms for all songs was going on? Jobs has repeatedly insisted on contracts that apply exactly the same terms for all songs, regardless of the source. It may not be possible for him to set aside this part of the contract for a small label without violating his contracts with the large ones, but even if it is... it would be extremely unwise for him to hand the big four a wedge to attack the flat rate.
Now it may be that you don't care about all the songs being 99c. That's fine, you disagree with Jobs on that point. The thing is, disagreement doesn't imply deception. It's possible for you and Steve jobs to have differing opinions on the importance of some point without either of you being a liar.
Did you RTFA? Their contract with the labels obligates them to have enough control over the client software to close any exploit within a certain number of weeks.
How many of the "I don't want to give any money to the RIAA mafia" and "the RIAA screws artists" crowd have sent their favorite band a few dollar bills in an envelope for the non-DRM encumbered music they downloaded of a torrent?
I've paid full price for every song I've downloaded from a torrent.
And I've also spent more money at eMusic than iTunes.
Did you RTFA? Not only was this point acknowledged there, but it was addressed at length. Now it may be that you've got a reason to believe that Jobs is being economical with the truth, but if so simply restating the point does nothing to explain that reason.
Apple went out of its way bolster DRM and lock-in to iPod+iTunes for its own reasons, not just the music industry's.
Apple has definitely made the iPod and iTunes more limited than they should be, and while I have some quibbles with some of your points I'll agree for the sake of discussion that they're to lock you in to iPod and iTunes.
However, I don't see how any of it bolsters DRM. Your fifth (unnumbered) point, "Why has Apple restricted all this functionality for non-DRM files?", is key: these restrictions are unrelated to DRM, and aren't any indication that Apple is trying to bolster DRM. Steve Jobs position on DRM is already well-established.
That's a different situation. If the entity that owns the patents is also the one distributing, then section 7 of the GPL already covers that, and the patent protection is passed on to whoever recievers the code, directly or indirectly.
:)
I don't see that. All that means is that if Microsoft wants to go after GCC's use of some patented compiler technique, all they have to do is stop distributing GCC with Interix, and require people to use Visual Studio to build code for it. There's no GPLed software they're shipping they can't afford to turf if it's worth it. This isn't about anything but revenue for Microsoft, they're not stupid - they see the end of the Windows cash cow coming as well as anyone else - and they want to establish that their patent portfolio has value. They've got a trickle coming in from flash drive makers, now they're trying to strongarm a few more companies.
The GPL allows for "mere aggregation" of closed source and GPL software.
Yes, I know. That loophole is explicitly in the GPL because it wouldn't have been accepted without it. That doesn't mean that RMS approves of it, or sees it as anything but a tactical concession. I've heard him say as much, more than once.
That was a suggestion that if you provide a web service using GPL software, you should also provide the source code.
And there's also the argument that a web service with a published API makes programs that use that API a derived work. And that brings up the whole API copyright issue.
The GPL *is* forking.
The GPL *has* forked. There's the LGPL, and a variety of exceptions that various open source programs apply alongside the GPL that have similar effects. There's passive exceptions, too, where software creators simply decline to enforce aspects of the GPL they disagree with, and dual-licensed software. If the GPL3 explicitly closes more "loopholes", it's goingto fork more.
But it sounds to me like you don't fully understand the GPL
"I don't agree with the official narrative" doesn't mean "I don't understand it".
In other words, the "FAA" of outer space is..... the Federal Aviation Administration... the FAA!
Holy Mother of Yeager, the irony's killin' me.
OK, here's maybe a better appproach to the same point:
Apple made a huge deal about having the same rules for all music in iTMS. If they make an exception for some independant or some small label then they weaken their case for keeping the contract the same when time comes to renew it with the big labels. Podcasts, though, are a new service. They can release them without DRM, or with DRM, because they're not on the big flat-rate contract they fought so hard for.
So there's a big downside and not much upside to cutting a special deal with some indie musician or small label, especially when eMusic is handling that part of the market so effectively.
So why do they go to the South Pole, if there is no business plan? Research. So where do they get the money to do research? Probably a government research grant.
I don't get your point here. The question isn't 'why go to the moon', it's 'how to go to the moon'. Bringing up "the business plan" for going to the moon is a complete red herring.
OK, so how do I buy a vehicle to take me to the moon?
You contract for the vehicle and the launch services from private companies, just like the DoD does when they want a new fighter plane, or how NASA does for the components for the shuttle. The companies that build the components for the shuttle are perfectly capable of taking on more of the job, they just prefer not to when NASA's happy to take the risk and give them the rewards anyway... private companies aren't crooks nor knights-errant... they're just not stupid.
The DoD typically puts out contracts for multiple vehicles, and picks the best one. It's not always perfect, there have been notable screwups, but the result has been that the DoD has had launch vehicles available when NASA hasn't. And NASA has been able to use those launch vehicles where they don't need a heavy launcher... even for the early manned flights.
There's no reason that NASA couldn't put out contracts (not a prize, a real contract with deadlines and milestones and partial payments) for vehicles meeting their requirements. It wouldn't help them build empires, but it'd build the space station.
Another way to get an ISS vehicle is to just announce that you will give a billion dollars to anyone who can provide that vehicle.
No, that's how you divert attention from your screwed up policies.
This really isn't free enterprise yet.
I didn't use those words, I said "private companies".
The Novell deal, while legal, goes against the spirit of the GPL, because they have negotiated a patent deal with a third party, but only for only their own customers.
Microsoft ships GPLed software alongside all KINDS of non-GPL-ed programs that are only available for their own customers, and Microsoft (obviously) also "protects" their customers from all those same patents.
Apple ships GPLed software alongside all KINDS of non-GPL-ed programs that are only available for their own customers, and Apple's APSL provides patent protection for Apple and Apple's customers that's not extended to third parties.
The GPL 3 will fix this problem by ensuring that any patent deals must be applied to anyone who receives the code (customers or not).
Will it also remove the "bundling" loophole that makes commercial software development alongside GPLed software possible in the first place? I hear they want to go after people who use GPLed software to provide services on the Internet, so I guess that'd be consistent with their aims. How about the loophole that lets Red Hat lock customers in to their pay updates? How about proprietary configuration tools for Linux? Are they going to try and kill binary drivers as well? What's so special about this supposed violation of the "spirit" of the GPL?
It's sounding more and more like it's time to fork the GPL.
You'd rather have shitty, uber-compressed version of "Stairway to Heaven" instead of a cover by a great indie band? Holy Mother of Zappa!
what they'll end up with is torrents of MP3s, all illegal, if they persist.
But, Doctor Evil, that already happened!
This quote's at least a couple years old: Second, he gives an argument against licensing FairPlay to other vendors that I hadn't heard or thought of before
Yes, that was interesting: if their contract with the labels requires that kind of control, then they can't legally open up Fairplay and keep most of the music in iTMS available.
Apple could _already_ sell some of their music without DRM
They do.