Start pricing out professinal grade cross-platform development tools. Qt is a long ways away from being expensive.
But you are right that it is too expensive for "casual" use. Perhaps they should offer a much cheaper version for non-commercial developers, perhaps similar to the educational program.
This is not indoctrination. This program teaches children how to program. It is completely unrealistic to expect that Microsoft would use GNU or BSD tools when they already have their own. No one would bitch of Redhat/Cygnus had a similar program that used Cygnus/GNU tools, so why are we being selective in our standards?
If you don't like this Microsoft-centric approach, then create your own curriculum. I used to teach programming to elementary students (using LOGO and Pascal). I used a variety of tools, but if Apple, Microsoft, Borland, or anyone else would have offered me the use of their hardware or software, I would have jumped at the chance. It's time we stopped dumping on Microsoft for doing what anyone else would do, and start doing stuff for ourselves.
For example, the only way to prevent people from recording a piece of music would be to lock down the music player all the way to the speakers...
Your goal should not be to prevent recording your music. After all, even under current copyright law you have the legal right to make archival copies of your legally acquired music. Instead, you should be thinking about how to protect against unwanted mass distributions.
Persuasion, ostracism and "blackballing" can go a long ways in protecting your property in a voluntary manner. Artists don't do business with studios that don't protect their interests. Studios don't do interest with distributors that don't protect their artists' interests. And distributors don't do business with stores that carry bootlegs. Then Big Bob's Bootleg Bonanza will be stuck selling used CDs. Consider it a reverse cartel. The first step is for artists not to sign contracts they disagree with.
It's not going to happen overnight. And with some people (RIAA) it's not going to happen for a long time. But you at least have to start. So start with some small groups of artists and distributors. When their cash crop leaves for the mom-and-pop studios, the big boys will pay attention and get their act together.
If any one of you anti-copyright people has not spent at least several months of your free time working on something which you are giving away for free, then you have NO RIGHT to even argue about this.
Amen brother!
I would probably fall on the side of "you anti-copyright people", but being against pubic government protection of IP does not mean that I am against private means of protection. After all, if the public trespass laws went away, you wouldn't sigh and pull down all your fences, would you? No, you'd probably start building them higher!
I have spent a year on a software project that I am giving away for gratis. I consider it my "own" property, and sharing it with the world doesn't make it any less mine. If I let all the neighborhood children play on my front lawn, it doesn't mean that the lawn is no longer mine. But even placing my software under the ultra-free BSD license, I still get letters from people bitching about it. A member of GNU wrote and warned me that people would exploit my work if I didn't change my license (I almost put it under the public domain as a counter-argument).
I am not sharing my work because I have to, or should have to, or because it will make me morally superior, or to free my users (as if they were slaves before), or any such thing. I am sharing my work because I want to.
I would be *glad* if people listened to my music. If I wanted money from it, i would make concerts and so forth.
So what's to prevent big concert promoters from making millions off of your music, while your own MP3.com sales earn you only enough to rent out the VFW hall? Some people would call this exploitation, while others would say it's what you get for abandoning your work.
I can think of several solutions. One of them is: shop your music around to producers or agents under a NDA. When a sale is made, specify in the contract that the producer will book only concerts that gain you a percentage.
If copyright went away, the producers would create a standard contract (probably several) that all producers would be party to. If one of these industry agreements would be to give the author a 10% take on concerts, then any concert promoter that had signed off on that contract could not stiff you. And a shady concert promoter who did not sign up with any standard industry agreement would soon be blackballed (as Shoreline Ampitheatre will only accept concerts under the ASCAP agreement, for instance). This is a form of blackballing, and as such it will be very controversial. But its no different than Free Software users and developers universally ostracising LinuxOne.
Other than a few exceptions, software licenses do NOT derive from copyright law. They derive from *contract* law. Why do you think they're called license agreements?
Tossing out copyright law will do nothing to change the MS EULA or other proprietary licenses. The problem is that the general public thinks all of this stuff is operating under copyright law, while the industry is operating under a mutant contract law. What needs to be done is either A) base licenses on copyright law, or B) make these licenses explicit contracts instead of a unilateral declaration that the user has entered an agreement.
My personal view is that copyright law should be eliminated *concurrently* with a fix in contract law. A consumer needs to explicitly agree to a software license and convey this acceptance to the licensor in all cases that would remove a legal right of the consumer. In all other forms of contracts, this is done by means of a signature. Although this seems unworkable, it is not. It protects the consumer from entering into binding contracts of which they are not aware. It also forces the industry into using means of IP protection that do not rely upon gun-toting police (DeCSS).
For most consumer software packages, encryption and/or registration keys will work. For larger commercial works, the sales force may need to get customer signatures, just as they do when selling support contracts.
At the same time, to play my own adversary, I do recognize that "classic" copyright law adequately performed the role of an abbreviated and standard implicit contract for two centuries. But at the minimum the DMCA and UCITA have to go.
I wonder if in accepting the user agreement you have already given the right to search
Don't agree to such agreements! If you "click through" in order to use such software, then complain about it... You are just as bad as those people who buy a house next to an airport then complain about the noise.
99% of the legal problems in the software realm can be solved by getting rid of these bogus agreements. If a license is supposed to be a contract, then get an explicit agreement between the two parties. It doesn't matter if it's the GPL or the EULA, let's see a signature before you sue on the basis of an "agreement".
No, it was the Police. Granted, it was the MPAA who asked the police to do so, in exactly the same you you can turn your neighbor in for smoking pot. The problem isn't that the MPAA are assholes. There's lots of assholes out there. The problem is that the government of most nations has become thugs for hire, and are little distinguished from a mafia protection racket.
The BSA is not a government agency. They do not have the power to come on your premises without your permission. They cannot use guns and cops to force their way in if you don't let them. They cannot confiscate any of your equipment without a court/government order.
All they can do is file a lawsuit, like anyone else can. So when is industry going to file a suit against the BSA for harrasment?
It doesn't matter who wins and what side you're on. National and statewide races are always neck and neck. The world didn't end when Kennedy, Carter and Clinton won, and it didn't end when Nixon, Reagan and Bush won. All you young guys running scared will learn in time that it never matters who wins the presidential or senate races. With either side you'll get the status quo as they both pander to the middle.
The fact that these big races are invariably 49/51 illustrates that there is no majority. It's a crap shoot. In fact, this nearly even split between parties is unnatural. Pick any issue that people care enough about to get their dander up on, and it will NEVER be a 50/50 split.
Re:Is anyone else scared shitless? I'm not kidding
on
Election Wrapping Up
·
· Score: 3
don't get me started on fucked up religious people that think you should run your life
A lot of them do think they should be able to run your life. But at least they don't have the power to actually do so. Every other case you mention either involves direct government action against you (Carnivore), or government explicitely allowing criminal acts to occur (chemical plants).
It's perfectly okay for people to tell you what to do. It is NOT okay for them to FORCE you to do what they tell you to do. Don't direct your anger at the wrong people.
A typical libertarian won't acknowledge that most problems exist.
Ah, flamebait of the highest order... Of course libertarians recognize that problems exist. Are you daft! It's just that we don't agree that the use of police and armies to enforce our solutions is appropriate.
Actually, he would do quite a bit, it just wouldn't be to enact new laws regulating your life down to the level of what water capacity your toilet can have. Instead he would work on getting government out of our daily lives.
The typical non-libertarian sees a problem and says "there ought to be a law." A typical libertarian sees a problem and says "how can I solve the problem without violating anyones rights?"
I'm ready! For the amount of money I send to the social security hole every week, I could have a nice fat retirement account. Hell, I could be retired right now!
When Nader sees a problem, his *first* answer is to get the government involved. When Browne sees a problem, his *last* resort is to get the government involved.
The libertarians will never be popular among the masses because they are the only party that doesn't promise you a place at the money teat of Washington.
So apparently, copyright law grants the user the right to make public performances. Thus, a GPL v 3 may possibly be taking away a right of the user! Richard, think this one over carefully...
I think the GPL is perfectly clear on the library issue, but that is more of a programmatic issue than a runtime restriction.
There are very good arguments on both sides. But they both can't be right:-)
The "Free" in Free Software refers to the software itself
Does software have free speech? Of course not! But free speech is what RMS says the "free" in "free software" is like. The software may be free in the sense that it is free from attached restrictions, in the same way that my carpet is free from dirt after I vacumn it. But it hardly has the freedom of speech.
free 1. Not under the control or power of another; having liberty; independant
This definition is obviously intended for *people*. Software cannot have liberty. It does not have any will. Applying that definition is just plain silly.
There is indeed a notion of "public performance" in copyright law. When you buy a video tape you can perform is privately for yourself and a few guests. You may not, however, perform it publicly in a movie theater.
Once a licence starts to restrict a users runtime rights, it's no longer a "copyleft" and instead is more of a EULA.
There is one small point in the GPL that does indeed take away a right already granted by copyright. And that is the right to use the work for the purpose of creating a non-derivative work. When I buy a hammer I receive no restrictions on what I build with it. But when I receive a GPLd library, like readline, I am under all sorts of restrictions regarding my end product. And the end product is most certainly NOT a derivative of readline! I am only referencing the library, and that is allowed under copyright.
I'm starting to doubt that this is the "real" Bruce at all! Of course you can own your own copy of the software! It is only a license that can take that away!
When you buy a book, you own that copy. When you buy a CD, you own that copy. And when you buy software, you also own that copy. Only when you don't buy the software, but instead buy a license to it, is the copy not yours. This is one of the reasons that one-click licenses are starting to become more prevalent: because the US Commercial Code says that when one buys a shrink wrapped box, one also buy the complete contents, so manufacturers need to make their "agreements" more explicit, instead of unilaterally declaring that you are under contract.
Any proprietary company can grab all the server source code to run their own game, thus taking advantage of free software, without having to contribute any code back to the community.
Under what rational should company be required to "contribute" their private modifications to the community?
Let's say I'm a graphic artist, and I design cheesy web pages for a living. I go grab GIMP, modifiy it, then go create a bunch a web art with it. I am the only one using this modfied GIMP, and the only thing I am distributing is its output. Should I also be required to release my modifications? After all, I am "exploiting" you by profiting off of your work...
Where do you guys get your twisted and corrupt definitions of freedom? Freedom means the absence of restriction. But killing someone is restricting them! Can't you get that through your head?
In a truly free society, I can do *anything* I want within my own domain. I have no rights to you or your domain. There is no need to place any restrictions on me in order for you to be free.
Slashdot Mirror
Start pricing out professinal grade cross-platform development tools. Qt is a long ways away from being expensive.
But you are right that it is too expensive for "casual" use. Perhaps they should offer a much cheaper version for non-commercial developers, perhaps similar to the educational program.
This is not indoctrination. This program teaches children how to program. It is completely unrealistic to expect that Microsoft would use GNU or BSD tools when they already have their own. No one would bitch of Redhat/Cygnus had a similar program that used Cygnus/GNU tools, so why are we being selective in our standards?
If you don't like this Microsoft-centric approach, then create your own curriculum. I used to teach programming to elementary students (using LOGO and Pascal). I used a variety of tools, but if Apple, Microsoft, Borland, or anyone else would have offered me the use of their hardware or software, I would have jumped at the chance. It's time we stopped dumping on Microsoft for doing what anyone else would do, and start doing stuff for ourselves.
For example, the only way to prevent people from recording a piece of music would be to lock down the music player all the way to the speakers...
Your goal should not be to prevent recording your music. After all, even under current copyright law you have the legal right to make archival copies of your legally acquired music. Instead, you should be thinking about how to protect against unwanted mass distributions.
Persuasion, ostracism and "blackballing" can go a long ways in protecting your property in a voluntary manner. Artists don't do business with studios that don't protect their interests. Studios don't do interest with distributors that don't protect their artists' interests. And distributors don't do business with stores that carry bootlegs. Then Big Bob's Bootleg Bonanza will be stuck selling used CDs. Consider it a reverse cartel. The first step is for artists not to sign contracts they disagree with.
It's not going to happen overnight. And with some people (RIAA) it's not going to happen for a long time. But you at least have to start. So start with some small groups of artists and distributors. When their cash crop leaves for the mom-and-pop studios, the big boys will pay attention and get their act together.
If any one of you anti-copyright people has not spent at least several months of your free time working on something which you are giving away for free, then you have NO RIGHT to even argue about this.
Amen brother!
I would probably fall on the side of "you anti-copyright people", but being against pubic government protection of IP does not mean that I am against private means of protection. After all, if the public trespass laws went away, you wouldn't sigh and pull down all your fences, would you? No, you'd probably start building them higher!
I have spent a year on a software project that I am giving away for gratis. I consider it my "own" property, and sharing it with the world doesn't make it any less mine. If I let all the neighborhood children play on my front lawn, it doesn't mean that the lawn is no longer mine. But even placing my software under the ultra-free BSD license, I still get letters from people bitching about it. A member of GNU wrote and warned me that people would exploit my work if I didn't change my license (I almost put it under the public domain as a counter-argument).
I am not sharing my work because I have to, or should have to, or because it will make me morally superior, or to free my users (as if they were slaves before), or any such thing. I am sharing my work because I want to.
I would be *glad* if people listened to my music. If I wanted money from it, i would make concerts and so forth.
So what's to prevent big concert promoters from making millions off of your music, while your own MP3.com sales earn you only enough to rent out the VFW hall? Some people would call this exploitation, while others would say it's what you get for abandoning your work.
I can think of several solutions. One of them is: shop your music around to producers or agents under a NDA. When a sale is made, specify in the contract that the producer will book only concerts that gain you a percentage.
If copyright went away, the producers would create a standard contract (probably several) that all producers would be party to. If one of these industry agreements would be to give the author a 10% take on concerts, then any concert promoter that had signed off on that contract could not stiff you. And a shady concert promoter who did not sign up with any standard industry agreement would soon be blackballed (as Shoreline Ampitheatre will only accept concerts under the ASCAP agreement, for instance). This is a form of blackballing, and as such it will be very controversial. But its no different than Free Software users and developers universally ostracising LinuxOne.
Other than a few exceptions, software licenses do NOT derive from copyright law. They derive from *contract* law. Why do you think they're called license agreements?
Tossing out copyright law will do nothing to change the MS EULA or other proprietary licenses. The problem is that the general public thinks all of this stuff is operating under copyright law, while the industry is operating under a mutant contract law. What needs to be done is either A) base licenses on copyright law, or B) make these licenses explicit contracts instead of a unilateral declaration that the user has entered an agreement.
My personal view is that copyright law should be eliminated *concurrently* with a fix in contract law. A consumer needs to explicitly agree to a software license and convey this acceptance to the licensor in all cases that would remove a legal right of the consumer. In all other forms of contracts, this is done by means of a signature. Although this seems unworkable, it is not. It protects the consumer from entering into binding contracts of which they are not aware. It also forces the industry into using means of IP protection that do not rely upon gun-toting police (DeCSS).
For most consumer software packages, encryption and/or registration keys will work. For larger commercial works, the sales force may need to get customer signatures, just as they do when selling support contracts.
At the same time, to play my own adversary, I do recognize that "classic" copyright law adequately performed the role of an abbreviated and standard implicit contract for two centuries. But at the minimum the DMCA and UCITA have to go.
I wonder if in accepting the user agreement you have already given the right to search
Don't agree to such agreements! If you "click through" in order to use such software, then complain about it... You are just as bad as those people who buy a house next to an airport then complain about the noise.
99% of the legal problems in the software realm can be solved by getting rid of these bogus agreements. If a license is supposed to be a contract, then get an explicit agreement between the two parties. It doesn't matter if it's the GPL or the EULA, let's see a signature before you sue on the basis of an "agreement".
No, it was the Police. Granted, it was the MPAA who asked the police to do so, in exactly the same you you can turn your neighbor in for smoking pot. The problem isn't that the MPAA are assholes. There's lots of assholes out there. The problem is that the government of most nations has become thugs for hire, and are little distinguished from a mafia protection racket.
The BSA is not a government agency. They do not have the power to come on your premises without your permission. They cannot use guns and cops to force their way in if you don't let them. They cannot confiscate any of your equipment without a court/government order.
All they can do is file a lawsuit, like anyone else can. So when is industry going to file a suit against the BSA for harrasment?
It doesn't matter who wins and what side you're on. National and statewide races are always neck and neck. The world didn't end when Kennedy, Carter and Clinton won, and it didn't end when Nixon, Reagan and Bush won. All you young guys running scared will learn in time that it never matters who wins the presidential or senate races. With either side you'll get the status quo as they both pander to the middle.
The fact that these big races are invariably 49/51 illustrates that there is no majority. It's a crap shoot. In fact, this nearly even split between parties is unnatural. Pick any issue that people care enough about to get their dander up on, and it will NEVER be a 50/50 split.
don't get me started on fucked up religious people that think you should run your life
A lot of them do think they should be able to run your life. But at least they don't have the power to actually do so. Every other case you mention either involves direct government action against you (Carnivore), or government explicitely allowing criminal acts to occur (chemical plants).
It's perfectly okay for people to tell you what to do. It is NOT okay for them to FORCE you to do what they tell you to do. Don't direct your anger at the wrong people.
So is she lying?
What part of the "sex" in "oral sex" does she not understand? Does she need a dictionary?
It seems perfectly reasonable for me to have censorware block sites promising obscene amounts of pork in exchange for screwing the voter.
A typical libertarian won't acknowledge that most problems exist.
Ah, flamebait of the highest order... Of course libertarians recognize that problems exist. Are you daft! It's just that we don't agree that the use of police and armies to enforce our solutions is appropriate.
Not a bad idea!
Actually, he would do quite a bit, it just wouldn't be to enact new laws regulating your life down to the level of what water capacity your toilet can have. Instead he would work on getting government out of our daily lives.
The typical non-libertarian sees a problem and says "there ought to be a law." A typical libertarian sees a problem and says "how can I solve the problem without violating anyones rights?"
I'm ready! For the amount of money I send to the social security hole every week, I could have a nice fat retirement account. Hell, I could be retired right now!
Do Gore and Bush truly believe that they themselves should have gone to jail in their youths for partaking of proscribed substances?
When Nader sees a problem, his *first* answer is to get the government involved. When Browne sees a problem, his *last* resort is to get the government involved.
The libertarians will never be popular among the masses because they are the only party that doesn't promise you a place at the money teat of Washington.
Wow! That's a pretty big loophole!
:-)
So apparently, copyright law grants the user the right to make public performances. Thus, a GPL v 3 may possibly be taking away a right of the user! Richard, think this one over carefully...
I think the GPL is perfectly clear on the library issue, but that is more of a programmatic issue than a runtime restriction.
There are very good arguments on both sides. But they both can't be right
The "Free" in Free Software refers to the software itself
Does software have free speech? Of course not! But free speech is what RMS says the "free" in "free software" is like. The software may be free in the sense that it is free from attached restrictions, in the same way that my carpet is free from dirt after I vacumn it. But it hardly has the freedom of speech.
free 1. Not under the control or power of another; having liberty; independant
This definition is obviously intended for *people*. Software cannot have liberty. It does not have any will. Applying that definition is just plain silly.
There is indeed a notion of "public performance" in copyright law. When you buy a video tape you can perform is privately for yourself and a few guests. You may not, however, perform it publicly in a movie theater.
Once a licence starts to restrict a users runtime rights, it's no longer a "copyleft" and instead is more of a EULA.
There is one small point in the GPL that does indeed take away a right already granted by copyright. And that is the right to use the work for the purpose of creating a non-derivative work. When I buy a hammer I receive no restrictions on what I build with it. But when I receive a GPLd library, like readline, I am under all sorts of restrictions regarding my end product. And the end product is most certainly NOT a derivative of readline! I am only referencing the library, and that is allowed under copyright.
I'm starting to doubt that this is the "real" Bruce at all! Of course you can own your own copy of the software! It is only a license that can take that away!
When you buy a book, you own that copy. When you buy a CD, you own that copy. And when you buy software, you also own that copy. Only when you don't buy the software, but instead buy a license to it, is the copy not yours. This is one of the reasons that one-click licenses are starting to become more prevalent: because the US Commercial Code says that when one buys a shrink wrapped box, one also buy the complete contents, so manufacturers need to make their "agreements" more explicit, instead of unilaterally declaring that you are under contract.
Why not copyright your source code and then put it in the public domain
First of all, it makes no sense to both copyright AND place it in public domain. One or the other, but not both.
Second, users of the BSD license (as well as MIT and some others) are sharing their code, not giving it away.
Any proprietary company can grab all the server source code to run their own game, thus taking advantage of free software, without having to contribute any code back to the community.
Under what rational should company be required to "contribute" their private modifications to the community?
Let's say I'm a graphic artist, and I design cheesy web pages for a living. I go grab GIMP, modifiy it, then go create a bunch a web art with it. I am the only one using this modfied GIMP, and the only thing I am distributing is its output. Should I also be required to release my modifications? After all, I am "exploiting" you by profiting off of your work...
Where do you guys get your twisted and corrupt definitions of freedom? Freedom means the absence of restriction. But killing someone is restricting them! Can't you get that through your head?
In a truly free society, I can do *anything* I want within my own domain. I have no rights to you or your domain. There is no need to place any restrictions on me in order for you to be free.