In fact, your point #2 demonstrates why your point #1 is not quite accurate. When the work and code are available to others, that is the most efficient form of development possible. The ability to incorporate code and ideas (ideas with working example code at that) is invaluable to ramping up development on forks or new projects.
If two competing firms were each developing a word processor in secret, they might produce the same deficient software or ineffective code. If those same programmers were working in an open fashion, they could recognize when they were truly duplicating efforts and either co-operate or diverge. In this way, more ideas and coding strategies are effectively tested and the strongest will survive-- all with the least amount of waste.
With respect to cross-distro sharing, the software involved is relatively minor in scope. Installation and package management are not the primary uses for the computers, so in a fundamental way, most of the work done at the distro level does get shared (assuming those improvements go upstream to the project developers rather than staying as patches at the distro level). And when superior installation and package management systems are built, there is still an opportunity cost involved in switching to them, so the value they add needs to be incrementally greater than that. It's a tough tradeoff in many cases, I'd think.
Debian is put out by a non-profit, has clearly demarcated at the package management level what is Free vs. non-Free, and doesn't appear to have a single lead person does. All three of these are vastly different than the Gentoo approach. Would you please elaborate with some details or links that would reinforce your assertion?
Jebus Crisis. Just make the ashtray out of metal, then it won't break at all. And what are they doing smoking in a sub anyway, can you say very tight environment with a limited supply of air?
Not that this invalidates your basic premise, that many military-grade goods are specially made to military spec and therefore justifiably cost more. However, I have to wonder how any Microsoft product meets the kind of quality standards set for even a simple ashtray.
Yes, thank you for shooting this bill down. Now all that worthless stuff can just stay in Disney's vaults! This law is better than nothing-- at least it's a start.
And it does have value. In many cases, the people who might own copyrights are not even aware of them, or are not easily determined from reading the copyright statement from 75 years ago. There's more to this than just paying a dollar. You also have to make it obvious who owns the copyright. I'd suggest that right there makes this plan worthwhile. Plus, while the work might not be worth much to the copyright holder, it might be worth something to someone making a derivative work or an aggregation or a library. In any case, if the work is no longer worth anything to the copyright holder, why should we give up our freedoms regarding our natural right to share, copy, and derive from that work?
You don't believe it? I do. There were comic files all over torrentse.cx last time it was up. Given what American publishers charge for those pamphlets they call comics, I can see why people would do it.
Even so, RMS doesn't believe in copylefting written works in the same way that he believes software should be copylefted. When it comes to his own opinion, he would prefer (as I think we all would) that as many people are able to hear what we have to say as possible (hence his subtle encouragement to copy the article), but at the same time he would like to make sure what is passed along is what he actually said (hence the "verbatim" clause). With software, on the other hand, copylefting is important because it not only gives us the freedom to share it, but the freedom to change it.
Besides, copyleft is dependent on copyright. In fact, it seems to be strengthened by it. In the absence of a copyright law, the GPL would have no force and there would be no reason to pass along source code with software or not to take found source code and use it to make binary-only software. Fixing broken software without the source code is challenging, I think.
Or they could just blame "Canadian Thinking" which is so much less specific than "Canadian" in the first place. This could be used in a more malleable fashion so that you can go after pretty much whoever you need to.
I don't see how I missed the point. And yes, all the reasons you listed are why I decided to start building my own systems using AMD CPUs and install GNU/Linux. I don't get why anyone would pay extra for Mac hardware, especially since part of that cost is an OS that I wouldn't personally use. My big question: is there anyway to build a PPC-based system without buying a Mac? Those dual-proc G5s sound pretty sweet, but only if they can run a Linux kernel.
Considering it's impossible to buy one that won't ship OS X, your question makes little to no sense. This isn't going to be instead of OS X, but in addition to it. You still have the privilege of paying for the Mac OS, even if you don't plan to use it.
Considering that people like Bruce Perens use the terms "Free Software" and "Open Source" interchangeably, this confusion is probably understandable and likely to be an ongoing problem. Indeed, here is a quote from the preface to Mr. Perens' latest speech: I use "Free Software" and "Open Source" interchangibly. They are both different ways of looking at the same thing, one emphasizing freedom and the other talking more about value to business.
For my part, I understand what you are saying and prefer the phrase (and ideology of) "Free Software". My first thought when I saw this article headline was "too bad they weren't talking about Free Software".
Yes. I can think of 25 high quality closed source programs. Should I start by listing every video game I've ever played or the many applications that I've found useful over the last 25 years?
Other than that, I strongly agree. It's nice to have examples of what didn't work, or to have something to look at for ideas, or whatever. The Free Software graveyard is nothing for the community to be ashamed of.
That interpretation hinges on the definition of the word "distribute" and is one of the grey areas in the GPL. My personal take is that an employee, acting as an agent of his/her employer during work hours is not the recipient of a distributed copy of the software and has no right to expect the source code to be forthcoming.
However, if the employees are given the software to install on machines they own, or the software is given to independent contractors, then the GPL comes back into play. Interestingly, my take on this is pretty close to the FSF interpretation. Here's a quote for the lazy: No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution. .
Did I mention that the GPL FAQ should be required reading if you are going to try and comment on specifics of the GPL?
There is already a financial incentive to carpool (i.e. your "tax break" suggestion). It takes 1/4th the gasoline to drive four people in one car than it does four people in four cars. It also produces 1/4th the wear and tear etc etc on the cars involved. Problem is, this isn't enough savings to offset the perceived costs of carpooling (usually related to flexibility and convenience).
Carpool lanes are a swindle. They do not affect the rate of carpooling where they have been used. That's the point. Now that they've been built, local governments ought to attempt to recoup some of that wasted money by getting high bidders to pay for the right to travel in that lane. Otherwise those lanes need to be opened to the general public. In some cases, these lanes are just extra lanes marked as HOV. In other cases these are dedicated pieces of roadway (which can then be bidirectional, using gates to control access). Here in Minneapolis we have both of these types of lanes. All of them have been utterly ineffective in changing commuting behavior.
Obviously these sorts of "express lanes" should not be built with tax dollars if they don't already exist. Or maybe they should, if the projected revenues can be shown to equal or exceed their costs (wouldn't it be cool if "profits" from the express lanes could be used to fund real solutions, like mass transit?). Special lanes are also useful for keeping buses out of traffic, which adds value to that proposition (busing is far more efficient than carpooling, I think-- and more flexible, too).
To me Showgirls was so bad it was good. Luckily the overall production and the dance numbers were pretty good, because the story was pathetic and the acting mediocre. The boobies? Well, it's hard to complain about those-- but no amount of them could make Eyes Wide Shut less painful.
Re:Interesting quote from ESR
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 1
Thank you for the very informative quote from ESR. I think his assertion that ideas are a form of property is the most dangerous thing I've ever heard of. Furthermore, he mischaracterizes the libertarian view on this matter, since there is no consensus at all in that community about it. I am putting him on my list with Jamie Zawinski as people who really need to be ignored going forward.
Exit contracts? You mean like the severance contracts almost any large company will make you sign in order to get severance pay during a layoff or something? Usually just enough money involved to where you're really glad to take it rather than being able to take your beef public, but not so much that it will completely tap the corporate payroll keg. The contracts are how they get you to agree that they have bought your silence. It's standard operating procedure, and I wouldn't call it draconian. It's a fair trade. You get a six month (or thereabouts) paid vacation in return for keeping mum. You don't have to take the money or sign the contract.
By that argument "Eyes Wide Shut" was the best movie ever made (except maybe for "Showgirls"). Which it could have been until about 30 minutes in, then it becomes two more hours of the worst movie ever made.
Re:Interesting quote from ESR
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Like many libertarians, ESR is probably torn between allowing individuals to homestead in the realm of ideas and the counter-view which states that any form of copyright is a restriction on the property rights one has in physical property. Or it could just be that he's not as careful or pedantic as others (RMS, for example). I should note that I stopped reading Lawrence Lessig's latest book when I got to a line that stated he considered copying an entire book "stealing".
To me the most interesting quote was from Ian's article regarding software patents: "The software industry today survives only through an unstated agreement not to stir things up too much." Pretty much what this says is that we are in a twisty maze of passages, all alike-- and that the darker it gets the more likely we are to be eaten by a grue.
Copyright/patent madness as it relates to the less cut and dried aspects of fields like software (and music and movies) has us spending more time "clearing rights" than writing software (or music or movies). The innovation that the temporary monopoly granted by a copyright or patent is supposed to foster is nowhere to be found, except in those areas where those copyrights and patents are least enforced. If there is truly an unstated agreement to let sleeping dogs lie in the software industry, the minute someone (like SCO?) sets off the alarm, those dogs will awaken and bite us all.
The obvious things needed are: an end to software patents, a stricter limit on copyrights (especially for works that are primarily non-fiction in nature-- news reporting, software, etc), and more Free Software.
Hmmm. What about the large number of potential customers who might feel more comfortable with your business if we happened to notice a harmless tattoo or nose-ring or slightly colorful hair once in a while? I have more than the average amount of money to spend, I'm a homeowner, a father, a registered voter, have worked for the same Fortune 500 employer for over six years (just to let you know that I am not some kid writing from his parents' basement), and I tell you what: I like to see that frontline employees at companies are allowed to have a little fun. If I had to choose between a business where the people were obviously allowed to be humans rather than drones, I'll take the humans any day.
I'm not even going to hit the "norm" issue, when many actors, actresses, sports figures, and music stars have tattoos, and these are some of societies wealthiest people...
Why don't you "express" yourself by coloring your hair purple or something. At least dye washes out eventually.
That's how I started, but before long I didn't feel quite so self-expressed anymore. Next thing you know I was piercing my ears. Before long I met some people who had tattoos, and they convinced me to try it. What a rush! I was hooked! Since then I've tried to stop. I've even had a tattoo removal. But nothing has helped, I still find myself wanting more tattoos! I can't get enough of this self-expression fad. It's getting to where I'm considering amputation as a body-mod. Maybe the hands, as a way of saying "I won't do your dirty work anymore, corporate America!"
My advice: don't express yourself ever, especially with hair colorings... that just leads to more extreme and more addictive forms of self-expression. You don't want to end up like me, defiantly hand-less and still craving more.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, your point #2 demonstrates why your point #1 is not quite accurate. When the work and code are available to others, that is the most efficient form of development possible. The ability to incorporate code and ideas (ideas with working example code at that) is invaluable to ramping up development on forks or new projects.
If two competing firms were each developing a word processor in secret, they might produce the same deficient software or ineffective code. If those same programmers were working in an open fashion, they could recognize when they were truly duplicating efforts and either co-operate or diverge. In this way, more ideas and coding strategies are effectively tested and the strongest will survive-- all with the least amount of waste.
With respect to cross-distro sharing, the software involved is relatively minor in scope. Installation and package management are not the primary uses for the computers, so in a fundamental way, most of the work done at the distro level does get shared (assuming those improvements go upstream to the project developers rather than staying as patches at the distro level). And when superior installation and package management systems are built, there is still an opportunity cost involved in switching to them, so the value they add needs to be incrementally greater than that. It's a tough tradeoff in many cases, I'd think.
Debian is put out by a non-profit, has clearly demarcated at the package management level what is Free vs. non-Free, and doesn't appear to have a single lead person does. All three of these are vastly different than the Gentoo approach. Would you please elaborate with some details or links that would reinforce your assertion?
Jebus Crisis. Just make the ashtray out of metal, then it won't break at all. And what are they doing smoking in a sub anyway, can you say very tight environment with a limited supply of air?
Not that this invalidates your basic premise, that many military-grade goods are specially made to military spec and therefore justifiably cost more. However, I have to wonder how any Microsoft product meets the kind of quality standards set for even a simple ashtray.
Yes, thank you for shooting this bill down. Now all that worthless stuff can just stay in Disney's vaults! This law is better than nothing-- at least it's a start.
And it does have value. In many cases, the people who might own copyrights are not even aware of them, or are not easily determined from reading the copyright statement from 75 years ago. There's more to this than just paying a dollar. You also have to make it obvious who owns the copyright. I'd suggest that right there makes this plan worthwhile. Plus, while the work might not be worth much to the copyright holder, it might be worth something to someone making a derivative work or an aggregation or a library. In any case, if the work is no longer worth anything to the copyright holder, why should we give up our freedoms regarding our natural right to share, copy, and derive from that work?
You don't believe it? I do. There were comic files all over torrentse.cx last time it was up. Given what American publishers charge for those pamphlets they call comics, I can see why people would do it.
You can't sue a thief.
I can't? Why not? Why can a family file a wrongful death suit against a murderer, then?
(Other than that I agree with what you've said)
Even so, RMS doesn't believe in copylefting written works in the same way that he believes software should be copylefted. When it comes to his own opinion, he would prefer (as I think we all would) that as many people are able to hear what we have to say as possible (hence his subtle encouragement to copy the article), but at the same time he would like to make sure what is passed along is what he actually said (hence the "verbatim" clause). With software, on the other hand, copylefting is important because it not only gives us the freedom to share it, but the freedom to change it.
Besides, copyleft is dependent on copyright. In fact, it seems to be strengthened by it. In the absence of a copyright law, the GPL would have no force and there would be no reason to pass along source code with software or not to take found source code and use it to make binary-only software. Fixing broken software without the source code is challenging, I think.
Or they could just blame "Canadian Thinking" which is so much less specific than "Canadian" in the first place. This could be used in a more malleable fashion so that you can go after pretty much whoever you need to.
I don't see how I missed the point. And yes, all the reasons you listed are why I decided to start building my own systems using AMD CPUs and install GNU/Linux. I don't get why anyone would pay extra for Mac hardware, especially since part of that cost is an OS that I wouldn't personally use. My big question: is there anyway to build a PPC-based system without buying a Mac? Those dual-proc G5s sound pretty sweet, but only if they can run a Linux kernel.
Considering it's impossible to buy one that won't ship OS X, your question makes little to no sense. This isn't going to be instead of OS X, but in addition to it. You still have the privilege of paying for the Mac OS, even if you don't plan to use it.
Considering that people like Bruce Perens use the terms "Free Software" and "Open Source" interchangeably, this confusion is probably understandable and likely to be an ongoing problem. Indeed, here is a quote from the preface to Mr. Perens' latest speech: I use "Free Software" and "Open Source" interchangibly. They are both different ways of looking at the same thing, one emphasizing freedom and the other talking more about value to business.
For my part, I understand what you are saying and prefer the phrase (and ideology of) "Free Software". My first thought when I saw this article headline was "too bad they weren't talking about Free Software".
Yes. I can think of 25 high quality closed source programs. Should I start by listing every video game I've ever played or the many applications that I've found useful over the last 25 years?
Other than that, I strongly agree. It's nice to have examples of what didn't work, or to have something to look at for ideas, or whatever. The Free Software graveyard is nothing for the community to be ashamed of.
Wow. Nice troll. Nazi Germany. You almost had me, too.
That interpretation hinges on the definition of the word "distribute" and is one of the grey areas in the GPL. My personal take is that an employee, acting as an agent of his/her employer during work hours is not the recipient of a distributed copy of the software and has no right to expect the source code to be forthcoming.
However, if the employees are given the software to install on machines they own, or the software is given to independent contractors, then the GPL comes back into play. Interestingly, my take on this is pretty close to the FSF interpretation. Here's a quote for the lazy: No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution. .
Did I mention that the GPL FAQ should be required reading if you are going to try and comment on specifics of the GPL?
There is already a financial incentive to carpool (i.e. your "tax break" suggestion). It takes 1/4th the gasoline to drive four people in one car than it does four people in four cars. It also produces 1/4th the wear and tear etc etc on the cars involved. Problem is, this isn't enough savings to offset the perceived costs of carpooling (usually related to flexibility and convenience).
Carpool lanes are a swindle. They do not affect the rate of carpooling where they have been used. That's the point. Now that they've been built, local governments ought to attempt to recoup some of that wasted money by getting high bidders to pay for the right to travel in that lane. Otherwise those lanes need to be opened to the general public. In some cases, these lanes are just extra lanes marked as HOV. In other cases these are dedicated pieces of roadway (which can then be bidirectional, using gates to control access). Here in Minneapolis we have both of these types of lanes. All of them have been utterly ineffective in changing commuting behavior.
Obviously these sorts of "express lanes" should not be built with tax dollars if they don't already exist. Or maybe they should, if the projected revenues can be shown to equal or exceed their costs (wouldn't it be cool if "profits" from the express lanes could be used to fund real solutions, like mass transit?). Special lanes are also useful for keeping buses out of traffic, which adds value to that proposition (busing is far more efficient than carpooling, I think-- and more flexible, too).
browsing the web when you wait for a train. But I can do that just fine with a newspaper.
That's some newspaper!
To me Showgirls was so bad it was good. Luckily the overall production and the dance numbers were pretty good, because the story was pathetic and the acting mediocre. The boobies? Well, it's hard to complain about those-- but no amount of them could make Eyes Wide Shut less painful.
Thank you for the very informative quote from ESR. I think his assertion that ideas are a form of property is the most dangerous thing I've ever heard of. Furthermore, he mischaracterizes the libertarian view on this matter, since there is no consensus at all in that community about it. I am putting him on my list with Jamie Zawinski as people who really need to be ignored going forward.
Exit contracts? You mean like the severance contracts almost any large company will make you sign in order to get severance pay during a layoff or something? Usually just enough money involved to where you're really glad to take it rather than being able to take your beef public, but not so much that it will completely tap the corporate payroll keg. The contracts are how they get you to agree that they have bought your silence. It's standard operating procedure, and I wouldn't call it draconian. It's a fair trade. You get a six month (or thereabouts) paid vacation in return for keeping mum. You don't have to take the money or sign the contract.
By that argument "Eyes Wide Shut" was the best movie ever made (except maybe for "Showgirls"). Which it could have been until about 30 minutes in, then it becomes two more hours of the worst movie ever made.
Like many libertarians, ESR is probably torn between allowing individuals to homestead in the realm of ideas and the counter-view which states that any form of copyright is a restriction on the property rights one has in physical property. Or it could just be that he's not as careful or pedantic as others (RMS, for example). I should note that I stopped reading Lawrence Lessig's latest book when I got to a line that stated he considered copying an entire book "stealing".
To me the most interesting quote was from Ian's article regarding software patents: "The software industry today survives only through an unstated agreement not to stir things up too much." Pretty much what this says is that we are in a twisty maze of passages, all alike-- and that the darker it gets the more likely we are to be eaten by a grue.
Copyright/patent madness as it relates to the less cut and dried aspects of fields like software (and music and movies) has us spending more time "clearing rights" than writing software (or music or movies). The innovation that the temporary monopoly granted by a copyright or patent is supposed to foster is nowhere to be found, except in those areas where those copyrights and patents are least enforced. If there is truly an unstated agreement to let sleeping dogs lie in the software industry, the minute someone (like SCO?) sets off the alarm, those dogs will awaken and bite us all.
The obvious things needed are: an end to software patents, a stricter limit on copyrights (especially for works that are primarily non-fiction in nature-- news reporting, software, etc), and more Free Software.
Ah, geez, that's supposed to be "society's" in that last sentence. This will teach me to preview. :)
Hmmm. What about the large number of potential customers who might feel more comfortable with your business if we happened to notice a harmless tattoo or nose-ring or slightly colorful hair once in a while? I have more than the average amount of money to spend, I'm a homeowner, a father, a registered voter, have worked for the same Fortune 500 employer for over six years (just to let you know that I am not some kid writing from his parents' basement), and I tell you what: I like to see that frontline employees at companies are allowed to have a little fun. If I had to choose between a business where the people were obviously allowed to be humans rather than drones, I'll take the humans any day.
I'm not even going to hit the "norm" issue, when many actors, actresses, sports figures, and music stars have tattoos, and these are some of societies wealthiest people...
Since when is it illegal to download copyrighted material?
Why don't you "express" yourself by coloring your hair purple or something. At least dye washes out eventually.
That's how I started, but before long I didn't feel quite so self-expressed anymore. Next thing you know I was piercing my ears. Before long I met some people who had tattoos, and they convinced me to try it. What a rush! I was hooked! Since then I've tried to stop. I've even had a tattoo removal. But nothing has helped, I still find myself wanting more tattoos! I can't get enough of this self-expression fad. It's getting to where I'm considering amputation as a body-mod. Maybe the hands, as a way of saying "I won't do your dirty work anymore, corporate America!"
My advice: don't express yourself ever, especially with hair colorings... that just leads to more extreme and more addictive forms of self-expression. You don't want to end up like me, defiantly hand-less and still craving more.