Your right to copy does not translate into a legal requirement for the producer to make it copyable.
If you find a way to copy a copy-prevented CD and use it to make personal copies then you're legally entitled to do so. But the record industry is under no obligation to make it easy, or even possible for you.
I doubt it. Freelance writers depend on a traditional copyright model. They make deals with publishing organizations who have exclusive publishing rights (for a time or for a territory). The whole thing depends on the reader having to buy from an authorised publisher.
Open Source is more like a writer making their work freely available and not restricting re-distribution. You then have a potentially unlimited number of publishers - who have no obligation to recompense the original author.
ICQ on a mobile phone?????
on
New Nokia Phone
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It looks like ICQ on the mobile phone is closer than ever!
Why would anyone want this? Why would I ICQ when I can talk to someone?
Reproducing what is available on a Microsoft desktop will win some users, but it is not enough. It may yet turn out, however, that Microsoft's licensing will provide that impetus to switch.
This seems to be common view amongst Open Source/Linux advocates. What people seem to ignore is that Microsoft can change its licensing at any time. Let's assume that an OSS desktop did begin to displace Windows in some significant way. Microsoft could switch back to a more reasonable licensing scheme to bring back those who were leaving, or at least stem the flow. Anyone who is ditching Windows because of the licensing - probably isn't very committed to OSS per se.
Displacing Microsoft as the dominant desktop will take more than bad licensing or even technically better alternatives. When you get to 90%+ (or whatever the actual figure is) - the only way you get replaced by the market is if there's a total paradigm shift. A lot of us thought initially that that shift had occurred with Proprietary vs Open Source. But whilst that's a paradigm shift for developers it doesn't appear to be perceived as such by users - so it fails to have the necessary effect.
So I believe the market itself will resist displacing Microsoft for a while yet. But hang on isn't that why we have Anti-Trust laws? Oh wait - for laws to be effective you have to enforce them in some meaningful way...
When was the last time you actually worked on Windows?
I use Windows 2000 as my desktop at (and before that NT) and I can't remember the last BSOD I had.
Microsoft Word also saves a partially written document in the event of a crash/power spike.
It's an application design feature of Emacs and Word - nothing to do with the relative benefits of Linux and Windows.
Windows is easy to learn and hard to use, while *nix is hard to learn but easy to use
Unix is a server OS and a programmer's OS. Linux even more so. The things that are easy to do on Unix and hard on Windows are usually the kinds of things programmers want to do.
For a non-technical user who wants to write documents, spreadsheets, email etc. Windows is much easier to learn and to use.
There's an Irish comedian who used to do a very funny piece on the song Ironic. He pointed out that most of the things in that song are not ironic - merely unfortunate.
e.g. "10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife"
would have been ironic if you found out the next day that a spoon would have done just as well.
"A traffic jam when you're already late' would be ironic if you were on your way to a meeting to discuss traffic problems
Of course a song which is all about irony but doesn't understand what irony is - is kind of... ironic. Don't ya think?
I don't use illegal MP3s, or go beyond my 'fair use' rights, but preventing me from exercising my fair use rights via such controls is in direct contrevention of copyright laws.
Actually that's not true. Fair use is not a right. Copyright law does not require that copyright holders make content copyable in order to guarantee fair use, it only stipulates that copying within certain limitations and for certain purposes is not copyright infringement.
Of course for digital content you have the extra hurdle of the DMCA. If a copyright holder chooses to encrypt their content and you break that in order to make a 'fair use' copy then you haven't infringed copyright but you've broken the DMCA.
They can sell the "GPL'd" version under any lic they want, they own the software.
Yes they can - if they really do own the software
The big question is - do they? Have the non-VA contributors signed over their copyright? And - something I've always wondered - how much of a contribution do you have to make to allow you to block this? If I make a 1 line change and submit a patch (C) Me - do they now have to consult me on licensing decisions? or is my work not considered significant enough to warrant that level of protection?
If VA is writing extensions to Source forge, I can't comment... it's a complex issue. Are they or are they not derrivative works?
First of all VA may have asked the authors to sign over copyright to them - as the FSF does. It's believed by many that this makes it easier to defend against GPL violations. I don't know whether this has happened or not - but I'd guess not.
Simply charging for distribution of GPL'd software - is not a violation of the GPL. The only possibly violation would be whether the 'extensions' together with the GPL'd stuff constitute a 'derived work' or merely an 'aggregate work'. That's what I meant about 'clean' interfaces.
My guess would be that we're talking about stand-alone programs which can be called by SourceForge with specific command line flags, input files etc. The fact that they are really designed to be used with SourceForge doesn't matter so long as they can be seen to be distinct programs.
From what someone else said - it looks as though these extensions are actually doing is talking to Oracle databases. So they have to make these extensions separate and proprietary in order to be able to interface with Oracle and not violate the GPL on the core software. It's a compromise based on the fact that their large customers want Oracle integration.
this was the only plausible reason for making proprietary extensions - to provide 'embedded' interfaces proprietary software. Of course you have to make the interfaces between these extensions and the GPL SourceForge 'clean' in licensing terms.
Otherwise - if VA had really been converted to proprietariness - they'd have just re-licensed the whole thing.
The way I read the letter - which was very brief - was that it's some new extensions which will be proprietary not SourceForge itself.
Morally I think it would be nice if the developers all received some part of the cash - if there ever is any. Mind you RedHat don't pay non-RedHat employees out the money they make out of GPL'd software do they?
Whilst I agree that Drepper's comments on Stallman can be characterized as "an attack" (I'd like to hear Stallman's side before I comment on whether it's justified or not) - the phrase "poor design decisions of the kernel developers" is most definitely not. It's a technical criticism.
By contrast it's calm, does not use emotional language and is not directed at a single named individual.
Far from adding evidence to Drepper being a "paranoid, obsessed" man - I think this comment adds more balance and makes his attack on Stallman look more like a one-off.
ESR isn't mis-stating the RMS/FSF position. He is basing his argument on what appears to be their position. That's why he actually frames the question in the article as to whether that is their position or not.
It's not a "hypothetical condition which has never been discussed before". It's a view that RMS and the FSF appear to be constantly on the verge of saying. Look at Kuhn's comments from a couple of days ago when he compares the "freedom" to use proprietary licenses to the "freedom" to own slaves. OK he doesn't outright say that he wants to outlaw proprietary licenses - but it's hardly an unreasonable thing to assume he believes. It's certainly worth asking him the question - as ESR does.
Slashdot Mirror
Your right to copy does not translate into a legal requirement for the producer to make it copyable.
If you find a way to copy a copy-prevented CD and use it to make personal copies then you're legally entitled to do so. But the record industry is under no obligation to make it easy, or even possible for you.
The one about the man who was afraid to fly and when he finally did his plane crashed was ironic.
I blame Alanis Morrisette.
He quoted something which was relevant, interesting and (mildly) amusing. The effort was in identifying that fact.
I doubt it. Freelance writers depend on a traditional copyright model. They make deals with publishing organizations who have exclusive publishing rights (for a time or for a territory). The whole thing depends on the reader having to buy from an authorised publisher.
Open Source is more like a writer making their work freely available and not restricting re-distribution. You then have a potentially unlimited number of publishers - who have no obligation to recompense the original author.
It looks like ICQ on the mobile phone is closer than ever!
Why would anyone want this? Why would I ICQ when I can talk to someone?
yeah - but how would safeweb have helped in this situation?
Seems like you need to develop a value system not based on simplistic rules.
This seems to be common view amongst Open Source/Linux advocates. What people seem to ignore is that Microsoft can change its licensing at any time. Let's assume that an OSS desktop did begin to displace Windows in some significant way. Microsoft could switch back to a more reasonable licensing scheme to bring back those who were leaving, or at least stem the flow. Anyone who is ditching Windows because of the licensing - probably isn't very committed to OSS per se.
Displacing Microsoft as the dominant desktop will take more than bad licensing or even technically better alternatives. When you get to 90%+ (or whatever the actual figure is) - the only way you get replaced by the market is if there's a total paradigm shift. A lot of us thought initially that that shift had occurred with Proprietary vs Open Source. But whilst that's a paradigm shift for developers it doesn't appear to be perceived as such by users - so it fails to have the necessary effect.
So I believe the market itself will resist displacing Microsoft for a while yet. But hang on isn't that why we have Anti-Trust laws? Oh wait - for laws to be effective you have to enforce them in some meaningful way...
... they never should have given it to Bruce Willis to build in the first place
When was the last time you actually worked on Windows?
I use Windows 2000 as my desktop at (and before that NT) and I can't remember the last BSOD I had.
Microsoft Word also saves a partially written document in the event of a crash/power spike. It's an application design feature of Emacs and Word - nothing to do with the relative benefits of Linux and Windows.
Windows is easy to learn and hard to use, while *nix is hard to learn but easy to use
Unix is a server OS and a programmer's OS. Linux even more so. The things that are easy to do on Unix and hard on Windows are usually the kinds of things programmers want to do.
For a non-technical user who wants to write documents, spreadsheets, email etc. Windows is much easier to learn and to use.
Thanks - couldn't remember the name!
There's an Irish comedian who used to do a very funny piece on the song Ironic. He pointed out that most of the things in that song are not ironic - merely unfortunate.
... ironic. Don't ya think?
e.g. "10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife"
would have been ironic if you found out the next day that a spoon would have done just as well.
"A traffic jam when you're already late' would be ironic if you were on your way to a meeting to discuss traffic problems
Of course a song which is all about irony but doesn't understand what irony is - is kind of
Where is this 'real world' where documentation exists? Can I go there please?
Actually that's not true. Fair use is not a right. Copyright law does not require that copyright holders make content copyable in order to guarantee fair use, it only stipulates that copying within certain limitations and for certain purposes is not copyright infringement.
Of course for digital content you have the extra hurdle of the DMCA. If a copyright holder chooses to encrypt their content and you break that in order to make a 'fair use' copy then you haven't infringed copyright but you've broken the DMCA.
Of course IANAL
Going by the sig - he's in Computer Science - which requires almost no hardware ability.
the Hauppage card comes with a remote and an IR receiver.
Yes they can - if they really do own the software
The big question is - do they? Have the non-VA contributors signed over their copyright? And - something I've always wondered - how much of a contribution do you have to make to allow you to block this? If I make a 1 line change and submit a patch (C) Me - do they now have to consult me on licensing decisions? or is my work not considered significant enough to warrant that level of protection?
First of all VA may have asked the authors to sign over copyright to them - as the FSF does. It's believed by many that this makes it easier to defend against GPL violations. I don't know whether this has happened or not - but I'd guess not.
Simply charging for distribution of GPL'd software - is not a violation of the GPL. The only possibly violation would be whether the 'extensions' together with the GPL'd stuff constitute a 'derived work' or merely an 'aggregate work'. That's what I meant about 'clean' interfaces.
My guess would be that we're talking about stand-alone programs which can be called by SourceForge with specific command line flags, input files etc. The fact that they are really designed to be used with SourceForge doesn't matter so long as they can be seen to be distinct programs.
From what someone else said - it looks as though these extensions are actually doing is talking to Oracle databases. So they have to make these extensions separate and proprietary in order to be able to interface with Oracle and not violate the GPL on the core software. It's a compromise based on the fact that their large customers want Oracle integration.
this was the only plausible reason for making proprietary extensions - to provide 'embedded' interfaces proprietary software. Of course you have to make the interfaces between these extensions and the GPL SourceForge 'clean' in licensing terms.
Otherwise - if VA had really been converted to proprietariness - they'd have just re-licensed the whole thing.
The way I read the letter - which was very brief - was that it's some new extensions which will be proprietary not SourceForge itself.
Morally I think it would be nice if the developers all received some part of the cash - if there ever is any. Mind you RedHat don't pay non-RedHat employees out the money they make out of GPL'd software do they?
I'd be careful with the use of the word 'original' - it implies that you're getting the source from circa 1970 or something.
Actually what you're getting is the current version of the source as used in the latest version of Unix (Open Unix 8 as they're calling it).
Whilst I agree that Drepper's comments on Stallman can be characterized as "an attack" (I'd like to hear Stallman's side before I comment on whether it's justified or not) - the phrase "poor design decisions of the kernel developers" is most definitely not. It's a technical criticism.
By contrast it's calm, does not use emotional language and is not directed at a single named individual.
Far from adding evidence to Drepper being a "paranoid, obsessed" man - I think this comment adds more balance and makes his attack on Stallman look more like a one-off.
ESR isn't mis-stating the RMS/FSF position. He is basing his argument on what appears to be their position. That's why he actually frames the question in the article as to whether that is their position or not.
It's not a "hypothetical condition which has never been discussed before". It's a view that RMS and the FSF appear to be constantly on the verge of saying. Look at Kuhn's comments from a couple of days ago when he compares the "freedom" to use proprietary licenses to the "freedom" to own slaves. OK he doesn't outright say that he wants to outlaw proprietary licenses - but it's hardly an unreasonable thing to assume he believes. It's certainly worth asking him the question - as ESR does.
Poor metaphor since Van Gogh cut off his own ear - he never asked anyone else to cut off theirs