Why is the court even bothering to worry about 1st amendment? That seems besides the point in this case. An NC-17 film is protected free speech. But a minor can't walk in and see that.
This is definitely not a federal law. These rules, as well as the current rating system, are implemented willingly by MPAA and participating theatres. Most likely they self-discipined themselves to avoid both public and political backlash.
MPAA or theatres can refuse service to anyone. The government cannot regulate movies (that are considered speech) this way; unless obscenities are involved.
I'm not quite sure I follow what you mean. How is this second licence any different from receiving an EXE+source+licence and proceeding to delete the source and licence?
You have the right to use it and no right to distribute it.
First of all, I didn't respond to you the first time!
Secondly, You are right mostly. It will be about the same. However, this fact is not clearly understood by much of management and lawyers and other decision makers and influencors (?). By making binaries and API (if applicable) directly available under EULA it will be eaiser for them to understand and associate with the software.
Failing to do this, a lot of times GPL and other similarly licensed software is referred to as "restrictive" that assigns you further "obligations", "cancerous" has also been used, if you know what I mean. A lot of times terms like these naturally raise reader's and potential user's attention in relation to most of the other software they already possess - closed source proprietary. After reading such negative phrases, description, feedback, or even marketing material, they are more cautious with OSS.
One way to fix this would be to offer dual-licensed software - one that they understand - binaries under EULA, and the other that they may take interest in - OSS license of choice. This will end the "restrictive" and "cancerous" propaganda relatively easily.
Now, many already know that the said propaganda is pure FUD when it comes to comparison with the proprietary software, but a lot of people don't - they take what's being marketed to them, nothing else.
That is why the fee should start earlyer (14 years was the old magic number, why not use it again) and increase exponensially...
I agree with 14 years, 20 would be better in my opinion. But, somehow, I don't see this system working on yearly, or exponential fee basis.
Expanding on the arguments that others have made, there is no fair way to determine and identify each individual copyrighted item to charge for. For example, a CD that contains 10 songs is copyrighted by, say, RCA. That could be a single copyrighted item. Or, one could say, each individual song is its own copyrighted item, also cover art is separately copyrighted, and so are lyrics for each song. So, in the latter example, at $1 renewing cost per item, you end up charging $21 for a CD. If, as you suggest, they were to charge $100 for 15th year and double every year after, only for the 15th year, the cost of renewing a copyright for a year on a CD would be $2,100. This may be bad news for smaller bands.
And that was a relatively simple example. Now, consider how this affects more complex projects where multiple-party copyrights are involved such as a complex GPL software project with hundreds of contributors. If everyone was to retain their copyrights on their contributions, renewing the copyright on the whole project would be close to impossible. Although, I acknowledge, that in the case of evolving software this may not be a serious issue. More on evolving products later.
If you look at it from another perspective and assume that a CD, a CD set, or a software project is a single copyrighted item that could be renewed at a specified cost, then copyright holders can use such methods to bundle their IP as one and only have to renew a single copyright on the bundle, yet still be able to offer parts of it for sale. E.g. Britney Spears music collection, pop music collection, series of game titles, etc. can be such combinations, yet single product from the collections can also be sold individually. This way, copyright holders will effectively avoid most of the system and its purpose.
Finally, it's also an issue with the evolving products. For example, Warner Brothers releases their movie "The Matrix Reloaded" on DVD this year, 2003. If you take a 14 year period, the copyright is set to expire in 2017. However, in 2005, WB releases a DVD of the same movie with more features, e.g. additional audio tracks, angles, alternate ending, etc. Since you could take the whole movie as a single copyrighted item, this update would include the original movie, but integrated with new extra additions, would this effectively "renew" the copyright term for "The Matrix Reloaded" and avoid the system?
Anyway, my preference would be to have a simple 20-year term, extendable by another 10, if the copyright holder chooses to. No fees, no complicated tracking systems... but that's not going to happen, it's a dream world.
I think what you mean to say is, "QuickTime is available on both platforms." You've got Windows, and Mac OS. Everything else put together is statistically insignificant.
MacOS has about 5% desktop market share, so does Linux approximately - your point being? Why isn't it available on Linux for free also?
Where do you get these fucked-up numbers? There are more iPods than there are all other digital music players combined.
You don't seem to see the referenced links in my reply. That is your problem not mine, and further proves your trolling.
OSS is not a toddler - it's tends to be just as mature as proprietry equivilants. So it should be covered by similar guidlines. Which is all memo says really.
Mostly. But I found couple of things that bothered me a little:
"OSS refers to software that is copyrighted and distributed under a license that provides everyone the right to use, modify and redistribute the source code of software. Open source licenses impose certain obligations on users who exercise these rights." [Emphasis mine]
This is not entirely true. Most open source licenses that I know of do not impose any obligations on *use* of the software (unless you consider warranty disclaimer as an obligation). These types of obligations usually come with proprietary software and licenses.
"Certain restrictive open source licenses allow users to copy, modify and distribute software..." [Emphasis mine]
"Restrictive" is a relative term. That's why I say, make all Open Source apps double-license - one Open Source license of choice, the other - binary only regular EULA with all its conditions. Let users choose which one they want. They will not call this software "restrictive", "cancerous" or any other names anymore.
Sure it is. It's built in to QuickTime, and QuickTime is freely available for anybody who wants to use it.
1 - Quicktime is only available on 2 platforms. 2 - Show me how you encode your AAC audio in Quicktime again for free.
And technology matters... why?
You go watching VCR tapes, I'll watch DVDs; this argument is settled then.
Oh, right, this is Slashdot.
Yes it is. I knew you were in for a rude awakening.
Seeing as how there are more iPods out there than there are all other digital music players COMBINED, I'd say you're wrong about that.
This is a know-it-all troll response. Last I checked iPod has 27% market share if you count dollar amounts sold. If you count units sold, Apple is #3 in the market - RCA and RIO ahead of it.
Obviously not. Look at the sales figures. Oh, wait, we're back to that "technology" thing again, huh? Pet Project X or Toy Device Y is superior to the iPod because of some nebulous idea of "technology." I forgot again.
See above.
Tell you what. Take a hundred people, chosen at random. Say "Vorbis." Ninety-eight of them will go, "Huh?" Now say "Ogg." Ninety-seven of them will go, "Huh?" but two of them will go, "Oh, that music thing the Slashbots are always complaining about. That thing that's like MP3 only not as good because nobody supports it."
What a silly argument. There was a time when about same number of people would call AOL the Internet. Many still do; maybe everyone should call Internet the AOL then. Since you don't understand the difference between Ogg and Vorbis even though the website is called www.vorbis.com, and do not care to, there is/was no point in further explanations.
The encoding format is called Ogg. I don't care what you think it should be called. It is called Ogg.
You got it the wrong way around. It IS called Vorbis by its authors. You think it should be called Ogg.
No, thanks. Instead, I'll concentrate on keeping my feet firmly planted in the real world.
You cannot even comprehend when something as clear as above is explained to you. There's nothing "real" about it.
First, I just wanted to say that the AC that posted above is not me!!! (though I enjoyed reading the post, I could have modded that funny)
Well, maybe if I look at it again it will seem funny to me too; or maybe I didn't have a good day today in general, who knows.
Second, your speech is almost based on technical superiority of Ogg (Vorbis, OggVorbis, Ogg\Vorb, OV, OgVo... whatever, we know what we're talking about), and it seems to me that history should have taught us one lesson: Technical brilliance of a product has *nothing* to do with it's acceptance, even more to it's victory over another concurrent product.
All I can say is that I did not dispute your/this claim. My reponses were in context to discussed issues, and not generalized statements. The issue discussed with respect to technology was a future of each format. My argument was that Vorbis is more suited for friendlier future upgrades than MP3. Read it again if you don't believe me.
I'd add that in the history of great battles (VCR, Word Processors...) almost invariably the worst product has always won.
Well, maybe the worst didn't win, but "the best" didn't either.
The bend over one. AAC is here, baby, and it's free for anybody to use. iTunes is on every Mac, and there are some non-Mac implementations out there for anybody who happens to be perverse enough to want to use one.
AAC is not free for anybody to use. And if you are comparing AAC use, ease, and availability to those of Vorbis, the picture is even dimmer for you.
You have some bizarre definition of "inferior" that the rest of the world doesn't share. To the rest of us, being "superior" involves being available. Since the iPod doesn't support Ogg (which you call Vorbis), nobody gives a damn about it.
Inferior was in obvious reference to technology. I also mentioned reasons which you conveniently cut out or ignored to justify your response.
Nobody other than limited number of Mac users care what iPod does or does not support. That is irrelevant to the world at large. There are other and better portable audio players.
On the other point - the encoding format is called Vorbis, the container format is called OGG. Although not likely, OGG container can contain video or audio encoded with other encoders like MP3, AAC, etc. What you are referring to is called Vorbis. Get your terminology straight.
Forgetting that capabilites don't matter a damn is not looking at the full picture. The full picture indicates that Ogg is not even important enough to warrant a footnote in the chapter of the history books where we tell the story of compressed digital audio.
Obvious, no point made trolling here about some "history" and "footnote", better move along.
The average user doesn't give a crap about decoder liceses; when was the last time you had to pay for MP3 software?
I don't disagree here - this was not my point at all.
The comparison is a valid one because users are presented with two choices, and are choosing what allows them to most easily enjoy their (and other's) music, not which choice makes a better political or ethical statement.
Wherever the "political" and "ethical" came from? Anyway, you are right with mostly because MP3 is already a widespread format, it does have a leg up on everybody including Vorbis, WMA, AAC, etc. But, at the same time, it's a business puzzle - do they keep MP3 and its successors "free" like now, or do they introduce a more controlled or otherwise encumbered format? By the looks of MPEG-4, it's going to be the latter. In this case, other formats have a bigger door.
The original comparison is not valid for one more reason, Vorbis is available free to anyone - it's not controlled by a single corporation which will either let it live or die. Vorbis will live. Not perfect but a closer comparison would have been Windows vs. Linux in my opinion.
The following may sound like a flamebait, but it's not. I am not making any statements to you in particular, or to anybody. I am just making a general observation.
I'm wondering if when Ogg version 2 will be released you'll convert all your CDs into this new format or if you'll keep them on your "very old and bad" Ogg V1 format.
What I am wondering instead is - when, in the future, MP3 replacement is spoonfed to you with the same or even harsher restrictions that MPEG-4 currently enjoys, will you simply bend over as usual, or will you demand and use something standard that works better and bears no cost to you, or anyone, to use in any way they please?
And we'll also have Ogg V6 which will oblige yourself to re-encode for the 6th time all of your CDs (Or you'll be blamed to be such a retard for using OggV5)
Actually, it is MP3 format that is fast reaching its end of lifecycle. Start off, it is inferior to other current formats, including Vorbis (which you call Ogg). It already has bunch of unclean "hacks" for variable bitrate support, as well as multiple ways and versions to store information about the audio - ID tags. Combining MP3 with another such patented "standard" - SBR - already led to a disaster - nobody actually uses it.
Vorbis, on the other hand, has a cleaner upgrade path; starting from that the encoding algorithm may be improved in the future AND remain backwards-compatible.
I'm not saying that Vorbis will rule the world, but discounting its capabilities is not looking at a full picture.
Ogg Vorbis is a niche format. It may be technically superior, but so was betamax. It's all about whether or not it gets player support. If it doesn't, all the superiority in the world won't save it.
Wrong comparison - the difference is - MP3 is owned and patented by Fraunhofer and it is charging patents on every encoder and decoder. OGG Vorbis, on the other hand, is free for anyone to implement, sell, encode, play, etc.
There is absolutely no similarity between Betamax and OGG Vorbis.
Expect Clear Channel, Viacom and their kin to get bigger, and the radio to have even less diversity (a situation that some people think is responsible for falling CD sales).
Which in turn will promote more P2P sharing, more legislation and criminal cases against regular people trying to resist the marketing spoon of big corporations.
I've been watching some of FCC hearings on C-SPAN about this topic - it's just a monkey circus with a pre-determined outcome.
The government, in the end, is responsible for this situation, what it seems for quite different reasons from this point of view. Don't let handful of media corporations form a cartel, control the whole market, illegally squash competition, fix prices at wholesale and retail levels, and then expect something productive or fair to come out of it.
FCC screwed up big time on broadband just recently, only to be fooled by greedy telecoms with empty promises, and now this. Time for a regime change, I say. FCC is supposed to benefit public good, not media cartels.
why would the leave out the bluetooth connectivity?
I agree this would be very useful. But the answer is probably they don't conceive majority of users using bluetooth. My opinion is they are wrong - last time I wanted to buy a bluetooth adapter, local Best Buy was sold out.
I never really liked Nokias, never really liked their UI at all. However, having said that, their new 3650 looks very nice with a camera, bluetooth, big color screen, etc. AT&T sells it for $150 with new 1-year contract. Something cheaper is Sony Ericsson T68i series for around $50 from AT&T as well that also includes bluetooth and has some unofficial Linux software.
Re:now that you mention it [netcraft]
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
Hmm... You are correct. I did a header request to http://www.sco.com/ and I got:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 22:13:30 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.0.3pl1 X-Powered-By: PHP/4.0.3pl1 Connection: close Content-Type: text/html
This does not report an OS, only says Apache version is Unix. Since this does not provide an OS, Netcraft must use other means such as nmap to determine that. So, it is possible that there could be a Linux firewall which Netcraft is reporting.
Further research shows that their site is hosted at center7.com. center7 website itself is hosted on RedHat. Both companies are based in Lindon, UT, and have some kind of joint venture deal since last year. This also explains their move from PacBell/SBC/PBI hosting to center7 in or around August last year.
Anyway, both www.caldera.com and www.sco.com seem to be resolving to the same subnet (different IP addresses) and both routing through 216.250.136.74 which is also likely running a firewall. A netcraft www.caldera.com query shows the exact same server setup as the one for www.sco.com.
Judging from above, it is possible that they have some weird network setup to hide their SCO servers as much behind Linux firewalls and routers as possible but I see it as very unlikely. I think it's more than likely that center7 just put all SCO's websites on Linux boxes.
Re:now that you mention it [netcraft]
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
Let me correct you please. Load balancers, firewalls, etc. do not reply to HTTP requests and provide the HTTP server information that is displayed on Netcraft page. If you read the FAQ more carefully, load balancers and firewalls affect uptime stats.
Reverse proxies and other types of caching serve HTTP and are HTTP servers - and they (if so set up) are more than likely running on Linux as seen from Netcraft.
Re:now that you mention it [netcraft]
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If you look up www.sco.com on netcraft, you will see that the site used to run on SCO UNIX up until the August of last year. Since then they have switched it to Linux.
So, yes, you could be more than reasonably sure that the server is currently running Linux.
The browser wars are over? They are just starting to get interesting again. Safari for the Mac is one of the fastest and innovative browsers on the market.
I disagree. If it is true like those "analysts" are predicting that AOL will cut spending or cancel most work on Netscape/Mozilla it will have a great effect on browser wars. After all, in some respects, a full fledged browser released by AOL means something to many people - (a) they download and use it, (b) they test their sites/scripts/apps against it, and (c) it's an easier sell to management to support it.
Up until now, again, at least to some extent, Mozilla and Netscape effort has been a driving force for many website developers and operators to standards compliance, even if it's a nasty Javascript browser check. This force (that has the AOL brand behind it) has been not only beneficial to Mozilla and Gecko-based browsers, but also others such as KHTML/Safari and Opera. Mozilla and Netscape have been advocating standards and platform independence and this is good for everyone.
If AOL were to really cut down on Netscape and Mozilla effort, this would greatly affect everyone involved. It would take whatever the power the AOL brand carried and turn it directly over to Microsoft and IE. Even less developers would try to comply to general standards, all websites and content would be developed for different versions of IE and WMP. After all, nobody has been known to test anything for Opera, and nobody will bother installing and/or compiling KHTML or Safari anywhere. Besides, who's willing to bet MS won't strike another deal with Apple to carry IE only like they did with AOL?
All in all, it would be terrible if these "analysts" are right.
Doesn't matter. By distributing their own code under the GPL, they have given up the right to restrict the future use of that code.
Which they never had or was "their own" in the first place. I thought that's what Novell press release was about yesterday. Copyright office has all related copyrights and patents in Novell's name.
Imagine a P2P sharing network that contains only legal content (how? probably something to do with only allowing non-anonymous posting, and a DMCA-protected login (flame away), among other things).
This type of system would actually be fair if, and only if, the underlying copyright and other IP laws were fair also. DMCA is not fair, it's even unconstitutional; copyright laws are not fair, it's not fair that congress can extend copyright unlimited times; nothing will ever go into public domain this way and be "legal".
Bring back 10-20 year copyrights, get rid of most types of patents, bring back fair use, and then we'll talk about fairness of the system you describe.
- Form auto-complete is still an unstable feature and may lead to crashes. - Disabling of form auto-completion is not working.
I caught that too! This is ridiculous. They shouldn't release software in this state, doesn't matter if it's 0.6, pre, alpha, beta, or anything else. This reminds me of some MS software.
Actually, if these self-expiring cars cost 1/4 what an equivalent non-expiring car would cost, sign me up. That is what we are talking about here.
The difference, of course, being that automotive industry is actually a competitive marketplace. Different companies try to provide best price, features, warranty, financing, etc. to attract and retain customers. The entertainment industry, on the other hand, is a price-fixing, we'll strip you every right you have, anti-competitive, anti-anything-consumer, control friek, and in many cases illegal cartel.
But if you really want to compare them with cars, consider this: You buy a DVD for $20.00 - you get to keep and use it for lifetime. You rent a DVD for 4-5 days - 1/4 price - $5.00. Now, you buy a car at, say, $20,000 - you get to keep it for as long as it runs (typically less than a DVD). You rent a car for 4-5 days - and you pay 1/4 price? $5,000?
Let's try again... You go into a Disney store and see a Lilo & Stitch "special feature" DVD for $19.99; you keep looking around and now you spot a soundtrack from Lilo & Stitch - wow... also $19.99! This makes you wonder - go into a car dealership and look at the price for Infiniti FX45 - OK, around $50,000; keep looking around in the same dealership for Nissan Murano... same price? I doubt it - it would be somewhere under $30,000.
"SCO will continue to support existing SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux customers and hold them harmless from any SCO intellectual property issues regarding SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux products."
Which would constitute to their acknowledged and agreed to distribution of Linux binaries and source code under GPL; which would, in effect, void their claim against IBM and Linux vendors/users.
Either that, or they have defrauded their customers. That's a good point.
Just imagine if they had made one and you had to take a 3-flusher. All of a sudden, BSOD. The bowl is full. You need to flush, but the flush control is a mouse click and you can't reboot (that's locked out by their new DRM controls so only the janitor can reboot).
Fortunately this is easier than you have imagined. XP Pro would be running as a Guest account, so you would simply need to follow these steps:
1. Close all windows (if any); 2. Remove all shit from the bowl; 3. Log out; 4. Log back in; 5. Put all the shit back in; 6. Open windows (if any); 7. Flush; 8. If not successful, repeat from step 1.
Now if, on the other hand, you mean that Microsoft restricts its tools to its own OS... well then I fail to see your point. We dont expect Ford to make parts that fit in a Toyota as well.
Then you have low expectations of your systems. I expect my web server to run on most available platforms, same for my database server, and I will try my best to make my middle layer be flexible as well. I do not expect my own solutions to restrict me to a single path dictated by a single corporation. If you choose to predominantly use MS-specific solutions, you are doing just that.
Now, I am not saying that's what you do, I am just commenting on the point that it's OK to be locked in. It's not "OK", unless it's by choice or a very good set of reasons.
Car comparison is not really valid. If you drive a Ford and start liking a new Toyota model, you can trade it in the next day; don't try that with any corporate systems, especially if you are locked in to a single vendor.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is the court even bothering to worry about 1st amendment? That seems besides the point in this case. An NC-17 film is protected free speech. But a minor can't walk in and see that.
This is definitely not a federal law. These rules, as well as the current rating system, are implemented willingly by MPAA and participating theatres. Most likely they self-discipined themselves to avoid both public and political backlash.
MPAA or theatres can refuse service to anyone. The government cannot regulate movies (that are considered speech) this way; unless obscenities are involved.
I'm not quite sure I follow what you mean. How is this second licence any different from receiving an EXE+source+licence and proceeding to delete the source and licence?
You have the right to use it and no right to distribute it.
First of all, I didn't respond to you the first time!
Secondly, You are right mostly. It will be about the same. However, this fact is not clearly understood by much of management and lawyers and other decision makers and influencors (?). By making binaries and API (if applicable) directly available under EULA it will be eaiser for them to understand and associate with the software.
Failing to do this, a lot of times GPL and other similarly licensed software is referred to as "restrictive" that assigns you further "obligations", "cancerous" has also been used, if you know what I mean. A lot of times terms like these naturally raise reader's and potential user's attention in relation to most of the other software they already possess - closed source proprietary. After reading such negative phrases, description, feedback, or even marketing material, they are more cautious with OSS.
One way to fix this would be to offer dual-licensed software - one that they understand - binaries under EULA, and the other that they may take interest in - OSS license of choice. This will end the "restrictive" and "cancerous" propaganda relatively easily.
Now, many already know that the said propaganda is pure FUD when it comes to comparison with the proprietary software, but a lot of people don't - they take what's being marketed to them, nothing else.
That is why the fee should start earlyer (14 years was the old magic number, why not use it again) and increase exponensially...
I agree with 14 years, 20 would be better in my opinion. But, somehow, I don't see this system working on yearly, or exponential fee basis.
Expanding on the arguments that others have made, there is no fair way to determine and identify each individual copyrighted item to charge for. For example, a CD that contains 10 songs is copyrighted by, say, RCA. That could be a single copyrighted item. Or, one could say, each individual song is its own copyrighted item, also cover art is separately copyrighted, and so are lyrics for each song. So, in the latter example, at $1 renewing cost per item, you end up charging $21 for a CD. If, as you suggest, they were to charge $100 for 15th year and double every year after, only for the 15th year, the cost of renewing a copyright for a year on a CD would be $2,100. This may be bad news for smaller bands.
And that was a relatively simple example. Now, consider how this affects more complex projects where multiple-party copyrights are involved such as a complex GPL software project with hundreds of contributors. If everyone was to retain their copyrights on their contributions, renewing the copyright on the whole project would be close to impossible. Although, I acknowledge, that in the case of evolving software this may not be a serious issue. More on evolving products later.
If you look at it from another perspective and assume that a CD, a CD set, or a software project is a single copyrighted item that could be renewed at a specified cost, then copyright holders can use such methods to bundle their IP as one and only have to renew a single copyright on the bundle, yet still be able to offer parts of it for sale. E.g. Britney Spears music collection, pop music collection, series of game titles, etc. can be such combinations, yet single product from the collections can also be sold individually. This way, copyright holders will effectively avoid most of the system and its purpose.
Finally, it's also an issue with the evolving products. For example, Warner Brothers releases their movie "The Matrix Reloaded" on DVD this year, 2003. If you take a 14 year period, the copyright is set to expire in 2017. However, in 2005, WB releases a DVD of the same movie with more features, e.g. additional audio tracks, angles, alternate ending, etc. Since you could take the whole movie as a single copyrighted item, this update would include the original movie, but integrated with new extra additions, would this effectively "renew" the copyright term for "The Matrix Reloaded" and avoid the system?
Anyway, my preference would be to have a simple 20-year term, extendable by another 10, if the copyright holder chooses to. No fees, no complicated tracking systems... but that's not going to happen, it's a dream world.
I think what you mean to say is, "QuickTime is available on both platforms." You've got Windows, and Mac OS. Everything else put together is statistically insignificant.
MacOS has about 5% desktop market share, so does Linux approximately - your point being? Why isn't it available on Linux for free also?
Where do you get these fucked-up numbers? There are more iPods than there are all other digital music players combined.
You don't seem to see the referenced links in my reply. That is your problem not mine, and further proves your trolling.
OSS is not a toddler - it's tends to be just as mature as proprietry equivilants.
So it should be covered by similar guidlines.
Which is all memo says really.
Mostly. But I found couple of things that bothered me a little:
"OSS refers to software that is copyrighted and distributed under a license that provides everyone the right to use, modify and redistribute the source code of software. Open source licenses impose certain obligations on users who exercise these rights." [Emphasis mine]
This is not entirely true. Most open source licenses that I know of do not impose any obligations on *use* of the software (unless you consider warranty disclaimer as an obligation). These types of obligations usually come with proprietary software and licenses.
"Certain restrictive open source licenses allow users to copy, modify and distribute software..." [Emphasis mine]
"Restrictive" is a relative term. That's why I say, make all Open Source apps double-license - one Open Source license of choice, the other - binary only regular EULA with all its conditions. Let users choose which one they want. They will not call this software "restrictive", "cancerous" or any other names anymore.
Sure it is. It's built in to QuickTime, and QuickTime is freely available for anybody who wants to use it.
1 - Quicktime is only available on 2 platforms.
2 - Show me how you encode your AAC audio in Quicktime again for free.
And technology matters... why?
You go watching VCR tapes, I'll watch DVDs; this argument is settled then.
Oh, right, this is Slashdot.
Yes it is. I knew you were in for a rude awakening.
Seeing as how there are more iPods out there than there are all other digital music players COMBINED, I'd say you're wrong about that.
This is a know-it-all troll response. Last I checked iPod has 27% market share if you count dollar amounts sold. If you count units sold, Apple is #3 in the market - RCA and RIO ahead of it.
Obviously not. Look at the sales figures. Oh, wait, we're back to that "technology" thing again, huh? Pet Project X or Toy Device Y is superior to the iPod because of some nebulous idea of "technology." I forgot again.
See above.
Tell you what. Take a hundred people, chosen at random. Say "Vorbis." Ninety-eight of them will go, "Huh?" Now say "Ogg." Ninety-seven of them will go, "Huh?" but two of them will go, "Oh, that music thing the Slashbots are always complaining about. That thing that's like MP3 only not as good because nobody supports it."
What a silly argument. There was a time when about same number of people would call AOL the Internet. Many still do; maybe everyone should call Internet the AOL then. Since you don't understand the difference between Ogg and Vorbis even though the website is called www.vorbis.com, and do not care to, there is/was no point in further explanations.
The encoding format is called Ogg. I don't care what you think it should be called. It is called Ogg.
You got it the wrong way around. It IS called Vorbis by its authors. You think it should be called Ogg.
No, thanks. Instead, I'll concentrate on keeping my feet firmly planted in the real world.
You cannot even comprehend when something as clear as above is explained to you. There's nothing "real" about it.
First, I just wanted to say that the AC that posted above is not me!!! (though I enjoyed reading the post, I could have modded that funny)
Well, maybe if I look at it again it will seem funny to me too; or maybe I didn't have a good day today in general, who knows.
Second, your speech is almost based on technical superiority of Ogg (Vorbis, OggVorbis, Ogg\Vorb, OV, OgVo... whatever, we know what we're talking about), and it seems to me that history should have taught us one lesson: Technical brilliance of a product has *nothing* to do with it's acceptance, even more to it's victory over another concurrent product.
All I can say is that I did not dispute your/this claim. My reponses were in context to discussed issues, and not generalized statements. The issue discussed with respect to technology was a future of each format. My argument was that Vorbis is more suited for friendlier future upgrades than MP3. Read it again if you don't believe me.
I'd add that in the history of great battles (VCR, Word Processors...) almost invariably the worst product has always won.
Well, maybe the worst didn't win, but "the best" didn't either.
Seems like an AC troll, but I'll bite this once.
The bend over one. AAC is here, baby, and it's free for anybody to use. iTunes is on every Mac, and there are some non-Mac implementations out there for anybody who happens to be perverse enough to want to use one.
AAC is not free for anybody to use. And if you are comparing AAC use, ease, and availability to those of Vorbis, the picture is even dimmer for you.
You have some bizarre definition of "inferior" that the rest of the world doesn't share. To the rest of us, being "superior" involves being available. Since the iPod doesn't support Ogg (which you call Vorbis), nobody gives a damn about it.
Inferior was in obvious reference to technology. I also mentioned reasons which you conveniently cut out or ignored to justify your response.
Nobody other than limited number of Mac users care what iPod does or does not support. That is irrelevant to the world at large. There are other and better portable audio players.
On the other point - the encoding format is called Vorbis, the container format is called OGG. Although not likely, OGG container can contain video or audio encoded with other encoders like MP3, AAC, etc. What you are referring to is called Vorbis. Get your terminology straight.
Forgetting that capabilites don't matter a damn is not looking at the full picture. The full picture indicates that Ogg is not even important enough to warrant a footnote in the chapter of the history books where we tell the story of compressed digital audio.
Obvious, no point made trolling here about some "history" and "footnote", better move along.
The average user doesn't give a crap about decoder liceses; when was the last time you had to pay for MP3 software?
I don't disagree here - this was not my point at all.
The comparison is a valid one because users are presented with two choices, and are choosing what allows them to most easily enjoy their (and other's) music, not which choice makes a better political or ethical statement.
Wherever the "political" and "ethical" came from? Anyway, you are right with mostly because MP3 is already a widespread format, it does have a leg up on everybody including Vorbis, WMA, AAC, etc. But, at the same time, it's a business puzzle - do they keep MP3 and its successors "free" like now, or do they introduce a more controlled or otherwise encumbered format? By the looks of MPEG-4, it's going to be the latter. In this case, other formats have a bigger door.
The original comparison is not valid for one more reason, Vorbis is available free to anyone - it's not controlled by a single corporation which will either let it live or die. Vorbis will live. Not perfect but a closer comparison would have been Windows vs. Linux in my opinion.
The following may sound like a flamebait, but it's not. I am not making any statements to you in particular, or to anybody. I am just making a general observation.
I'm wondering if when Ogg version 2 will be released you'll convert all your CDs into this new format or if you'll keep them on your "very old and bad" Ogg V1 format.
What I am wondering instead is - when, in the future, MP3 replacement is spoonfed to you with the same or even harsher restrictions that MPEG-4 currently enjoys, will you simply bend over as usual, or will you demand and use something standard that works better and bears no cost to you, or anyone, to use in any way they please?
And we'll also have Ogg V6 which will oblige yourself to re-encode for the 6th time all of your CDs (Or you'll be blamed to be such a retard for using OggV5)
Actually, it is MP3 format that is fast reaching its end of lifecycle. Start off, it is inferior to other current formats, including Vorbis (which you call Ogg). It already has bunch of unclean "hacks" for variable bitrate support, as well as multiple ways and versions to store information about the audio - ID tags. Combining MP3 with another such patented "standard" - SBR - already led to a disaster - nobody actually uses it.
Vorbis, on the other hand, has a cleaner upgrade path; starting from that the encoding algorithm may be improved in the future AND remain backwards-compatible.
I'm not saying that Vorbis will rule the world, but discounting its capabilities is not looking at a full picture.
Ogg Vorbis is a niche format. It may be technically superior, but so was betamax. It's all about whether or not it gets player support. If it doesn't, all the superiority in the world won't save it.
Wrong comparison - the difference is - MP3 is owned and patented by Fraunhofer and it is charging patents on every encoder and decoder. OGG Vorbis, on the other hand, is free for anyone to implement, sell, encode, play, etc.
There is absolutely no similarity between Betamax and OGG Vorbis.
Expect Clear Channel, Viacom and their kin to get bigger, and the radio to have even less diversity (a situation that some people think is responsible for falling CD sales).
Which in turn will promote more P2P sharing, more legislation and criminal cases against regular people trying to resist the marketing spoon of big corporations.
I've been watching some of FCC hearings on C-SPAN about this topic - it's just a monkey circus with a pre-determined outcome.
The government, in the end, is responsible for this situation, what it seems for quite different reasons from this point of view. Don't let handful of media corporations form a cartel, control the whole market, illegally squash competition, fix prices at wholesale and retail levels, and then expect something productive or fair to come out of it.
FCC screwed up big time on broadband just recently, only to be fooled by greedy telecoms with empty promises, and now this. Time for a regime change, I say. FCC is supposed to benefit public good, not media cartels.
why would the leave out the bluetooth connectivity?
I agree this would be very useful. But the answer is probably they don't conceive majority of users using bluetooth. My opinion is they are wrong - last time I wanted to buy a bluetooth adapter, local Best Buy was sold out.
I never really liked Nokias, never really liked their UI at all. However, having said that, their new 3650 looks very nice with a camera, bluetooth, big color screen, etc. AT&T sells it for $150 with new 1-year contract. Something cheaper is Sony Ericsson T68i series for around $50 from AT&T as well that also includes bluetooth and has some unofficial Linux software.
Hmm... You are correct. I did a header request to http://www.sco.com/ and I got:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 22:13:30 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.0.3pl1
X-Powered-By: PHP/4.0.3pl1
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
This does not report an OS, only says Apache version is Unix. Since this does not provide an OS, Netcraft must use other means such as nmap to determine that. So, it is possible that there could be a Linux firewall which Netcraft is reporting.
Further research shows that their site is hosted at center7.com. center7 website itself is hosted on RedHat. Both companies are based in Lindon, UT, and have some kind of joint venture deal since last year. This also explains their move from PacBell/SBC/PBI hosting to center7 in or around August last year.
Anyway, both www.caldera.com and www.sco.com seem to be resolving to the same subnet (different IP addresses) and both routing through 216.250.136.74 which is also likely running a firewall. A netcraft www.caldera.com query shows the exact same server setup as the one for www.sco.com.
Judging from above, it is possible that they have some weird network setup to hide their SCO servers as much behind Linux firewalls and routers as possible but I see it as very unlikely. I think it's more than likely that center7 just put all SCO's websites on Linux boxes.
Let me correct you please. Load balancers, firewalls, etc. do not reply to HTTP requests and provide the HTTP server information that is displayed on Netcraft page. If you read the FAQ more carefully, load balancers and firewalls affect uptime stats.
Reverse proxies and other types of caching serve HTTP and are HTTP servers - and they (if so set up) are more than likely running on Linux as seen from Netcraft.
If you look up www.sco.com on netcraft, you will see that the site used to run on SCO UNIX up until the August of last year. Since then they have switched it to Linux.
So, yes, you could be more than reasonably sure that the server is currently running Linux.
The browser wars are over? They are just starting to get interesting again. Safari for the Mac is one of the fastest and innovative browsers on the market.
I disagree. If it is true like those "analysts" are predicting that AOL will cut spending or cancel most work on Netscape/Mozilla it will have a great effect on browser wars. After all, in some respects, a full fledged browser released by AOL means something to many people - (a) they download and use it, (b) they test their sites/scripts/apps against it, and (c) it's an easier sell to management to support it.
Up until now, again, at least to some extent, Mozilla and Netscape effort has been a driving force for many website developers and operators to standards compliance, even if it's a nasty Javascript browser check. This force (that has the AOL brand behind it) has been not only beneficial to Mozilla and Gecko-based browsers, but also others such as KHTML/Safari and Opera. Mozilla and Netscape have been advocating standards and platform independence and this is good for everyone.
If AOL were to really cut down on Netscape and Mozilla effort, this would greatly affect everyone involved. It would take whatever the power the AOL brand carried and turn it directly over to Microsoft and IE. Even less developers would try to comply to general standards, all websites and content would be developed for different versions of IE and WMP. After all, nobody has been known to test anything for Opera, and nobody will bother installing and/or compiling KHTML or Safari anywhere. Besides, who's willing to bet MS won't strike another deal with Apple to carry IE only like they did with AOL?
All in all, it would be terrible if these "analysts" are right.
Doesn't matter. By distributing their own code under the GPL, they have given up the right to restrict the future use of that code.
Which they never had or was "their own" in the first place. I thought that's what Novell press release was about yesterday. Copyright office has all related copyrights and patents in Novell's name.
Imagine a P2P sharing network that contains only legal content (how? probably something to do with only allowing non-anonymous posting, and a DMCA-protected login (flame away), among other things).
This type of system would actually be fair if, and only if, the underlying copyright and other IP laws were fair also. DMCA is not fair, it's even unconstitutional; copyright laws are not fair, it's not fair that congress can extend copyright unlimited times; nothing will ever go into public domain this way and be "legal".
Bring back 10-20 year copyrights, get rid of most types of patents, bring back fair use, and then we'll talk about fairness of the system you describe.
- Form auto-complete is still an unstable feature and may lead to crashes.
- Disabling of form auto-completion is not working.
I caught that too! This is ridiculous. They shouldn't release software in this state, doesn't matter if it's 0.6, pre, alpha, beta, or anything else. This reminds me of some MS software.
Actually, if these self-expiring cars cost 1/4 what an equivalent non-expiring car would cost, sign me up. That is what we are talking about here.
The difference, of course, being that automotive industry is actually a competitive marketplace. Different companies try to provide best price, features, warranty, financing, etc. to attract and retain customers. The entertainment industry, on the other hand, is a price-fixing, we'll strip you every right you have, anti-competitive, anti-anything-consumer, control friek, and in many cases illegal cartel.
But if you really want to compare them with cars, consider this: You buy a DVD for $20.00 - you get to keep and use it for lifetime. You rent a DVD for 4-5 days - 1/4 price - $5.00. Now, you buy a car at, say, $20,000 - you get to keep it for as long as it runs (typically less than a DVD). You rent a car for 4-5 days - and you pay 1/4 price? $5,000?
Let's try again... You go into a Disney store and see a Lilo & Stitch "special feature" DVD for $19.99; you keep looking around and now you spot a soundtrack from Lilo & Stitch - wow... also $19.99! This makes you wonder - go into a car dealership and look at the price for Infiniti FX45 - OK, around $50,000; keep looking around in the same dealership for Nissan Murano... same price? I doubt it - it would be somewhere under $30,000.
You get the idea.
"SCO will continue to support existing SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux customers and hold them harmless from any SCO intellectual property issues regarding SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux products."
Which would constitute to their acknowledged and agreed to distribution of Linux binaries and source code under GPL; which would, in effect, void their claim against IBM and Linux vendors/users.
Either that, or they have defrauded their customers. That's a good point.
But, there are MANY times when operator overloading would make things sooo much easier. Which would you rather read:
complex z1(0,1);
complex z2(1,0);
complex z3 = z1+z2;
or
complex z1(0,1);
complex z2(1,0);
complex z3 = complexMath.Add(z1, z2);
They are exactly the same, and not at all applicable in all situations.
(The second is still better than z3=z1.Add(z2) IMHO)
Now, this is entirely different - if you are doing z1.add(z2) it usually means z1 is modified, not the same as above. Also, consider this:
method add
param complex z2
param boolean overwrite
param int replaceLevel
param boolean updateStructures
z1.add(z2, true, 4, false);
Hence, the advantage and flexibility of OO. Use functions otherwise which would be equivalent of complexMath.Add() call.
Just imagine if they had made one and you had to take a 3-flusher. All of a sudden, BSOD. The bowl is full. You need to flush, but the flush control is a mouse click and you can't reboot (that's locked out by their new DRM controls so only the janitor can reboot).
Fortunately this is easier than you have imagined. XP Pro would be running as a Guest account, so you would simply need to follow these steps:
1. Close all windows (if any);
2. Remove all shit from the bowl;
3. Log out;
4. Log back in;
5. Put all the shit back in;
6. Open windows (if any);
7. Flush;
8. If not successful, repeat from step 1.
Now if, on the other hand, you mean that Microsoft restricts its tools to its own OS ... well then I fail to see your point. We dont expect Ford to make parts that fit in a Toyota as well.
Then you have low expectations of your systems. I expect my web server to run on most available platforms, same for my database server, and I will try my best to make my middle layer be flexible as well. I do not expect my own solutions to restrict me to a single path dictated by a single corporation. If you choose to predominantly use MS-specific solutions, you are doing just that.
Now, I am not saying that's what you do, I am just commenting on the point that it's OK to be locked in. It's not "OK", unless it's by choice or a very good set of reasons.
Car comparison is not really valid. If you drive a Ford and start liking a new Toyota model, you can trade it in the next day; don't try that with any corporate systems, especially if you are locked in to a single vendor.