It's very easy to understand why developers might prefer to retain control. What is not clear is whether and why society should prefer this arrangement. If society should give you this right, what does society gain in return?
Society gains my software. If I don't retain adaquate rights to my work after release, it doesn't get released. I keep it a deep dark secret. Just like the trades and guilds did their technology before the advent of patent law in the 18th century.
Of course. But the question is, what rights should you have once the cat is out of the bag, so to speak.
Indeed, what rights are you going to offer me in exchange for letting the cat out of the bag? Patent rights? Copyrights?
How about I just write a contract that gives you the right to run this program on a single computer with no writable removable media drives in exchange for a whopping monthly fee. As part of this contract you must post a big old bond that is forfeit if you don't keep the existance of this software secret except for those within your company that I approve, and you must keep this computer, and all copies of the software in a locked room inside which there is no network connectivity. Only two people, identified by you and approved by me are allowed inside this room. Any disassembly, reverse-engineering etc. forfeits the bond. We have the right to audit, inspect your premises etc. You are not allowed to use any of the software technology present in this program in your future products. (I saw this in an NDA contract once).
Are you going to make contracts like this illegal? Good luck - that means a major overhaul of our system of government.
If you don't come up with an offer of rights I consider fair, the cat stays in the bag, Sorry.
The difference being, of course, that BillG only cares about the software he bankrolls,
Actually Bill Gates' minions have been complaining about the GPL as being 'un-American'. He definitely wants to influence the license terms that software other than his own is ditributed under.
If you invented a new way of doing math, would you think that you have the right come hell or high water to keep people from using it if you wanted to?
Damn straight I do.
I completely reject the concept that I have to show anything I invent to ANYONE. Ultimately I always have the right and ability to destroy any writings, calculations or code that I author before I show it to anyone.
Given the fundamental freedom to keep my thoughts to myself, it is up to you to come up with a way to encourage me to share my inventions with others. This is what intellectual property is all about - encouraging creators to share their work. If you don't like IP, well too bad, because I am not going to give you my work just for your pleasure or convenience.
I reject your bullshit laws that throw me in prison for helping a friend out by copying software
It's not for you to reject. Copyrights and Patents are explicit contracts between the government and the author. If you don't like it, it's up to you to come up with an alternative that authors like better.
Why would I want to be lumped together with a bunch of stodgy old electrical or mechanical dweebs?
Because they are responsible for all the technology you use on a daily basis?
And no, it wasn't programmers that build the first calculator. It was a stodgy old electrical dweeb.
Seriously, I think that software that is used in critical applications should be subject to competancy requirements. Like the saying goes, if our buildings were designed like our software is, the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization.
Otherwise licensing is a waste of time.
And that is how it is done in other disciplines as well. Licenses are only required for work in certain areas - otherwise anyone who can convince a company that he can do a job can work as a engineer.
Who appointed Stallman God? In his own way he is just as bad as Bill Gates, for they are both trying to dictate the terms under which we can distribute the software we write, or use the software we use that has been written by others.
I reject both of them for trying to control what I do with the code I write. When I write something, _I_ should have control under the provisions it is licensed under.
When I use software from others I have to make a choice about what license provisions I will agree to. These days I have a lot of choices. I like it that way.
I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions in this regard - and I cannot stomach the idea of others trying to make them for me.
C/C++ is the default language for system software.
I would say that C is the default language for system software. Not C++.
I would rather have features available then not.
I would rather have useful features than not. Much of what I see in C++ seems less useful than I would hope.
why does a 10 line Java program require a 30 megabyte VM ?
It doesn't require any such thing.
gcj -O5 --main=hello hello.java
ls -l a.out
-rwxrwxr-x 1 eric eric 73117 Nov 20 22:36 a.out
Templates. Again, you DON"T have to use them.
Templates are evil because their definitions are not type checked in parameterized form. This often leads to problems that are the devil's own work.
The fact is that C++ compilers are forced into heuristic methods for evaluating static type safety rather than the mathematical surety that Java's design permits. Which would you rather have?
Crappy software can be written in both languages. The argument that C++ automatically produces crap code is ridiculous.
I merely propose that the skill of the programmer is the primary determinant of code quality.
C++ is a STANDARD, that was reached using a democratic process.
In other words it was designed by a committee of people with no overarching vision of what the language should be. No wonder they started with a horse and arrived at a camel.
Political arguments are irrelevant when evaluating the technical merits of a language.
However, from what I've seen most of the Java code out there is PROCEDURAL.
Sturgeon's law states that 90% of everything is crap. This is overly optimistic when it comes to code.
One of the reasons that I originally learned Java is that it seems to have become the default language in much of the Design Pattern and OOP/OOD literature. Clearly there is a reason for this - and the reason is that Java is very good at expressing good ideas in software design in a clear fashion. I have found that in my own work this is a very valuable language feature.
Rookie C++ code is going to be just as crappy, if not more so due to the complexity of the language as rookie Java code. Probably MUCH worse in terms of stability, too. C++ may be able to give you better performance, but it WON'T give you better code than what can be achieved in Java, and it certainly will be less stable, harder to maintain and be a less productive place to develop in.
As far as I am concerned, C++ is a design error. Indiscriminant inclusion of features the the designers now regret and a STL library that anyone who wants the performance of a compiled language needs to avoid has lead to a nightmare language.
The fact is that the biggest problems in producing good applications - stability and consistent design are not addressed by bolting OOP features onto what is really a procedural high level assembler.
you need to develop some configuration files or such for you site
Actually my preference would be to find a job where I didn't have to maintain this godawful mess.
Configuration files aren't going to help me solve the problem of having to calculate a discount based on some business rule in PHP, Java, Javascript, AND Perl depending on where you are on the site. An external library, which has been pointed out could be written in one language, then called from others is as step in the right direction - but not good enough. If the site was written in ONE language I'd be able to structure the code rationally across the whole site, and use a system like Javadoc to generate the documentation for the site.
Trying to use multiple languages seems to me to be an organizational nightmare for any programming job.
Hmmm - I spend a fair amount of my time maintaining a web site that is a mix of PHP/Java/Perl.
I hate it becaue basic functionality on the site is coded in each language, and has to be maintained or changed in at least 3 places every time an update has to be made.
So I guess I would say that the lack of ability to share working code from one language base to another in this implementation is a hell of a good reason to avoid this approach like the plague.
don't expect too much in the US. When the media is run by for-profit, private companies, instead of public supported channels like the BBC
And PBS is just what then?
The problem with media in Britain is that it's run by and controlled by the governement. In my opinion that is far worse a situation than what we have in the US. Especially given the lack of an equivalent to the First Amendment in Britain.
I once had a 5 gallon container of Acrylamide (50% solution) shipped to me via UPS by a chemical manufacturer. Packaged completely according to DOT regulations governing Class B poisons. Acrylamide is highly reactive, can self-react with a large release of heat and buildup of pressure in sealed containers, as well being as a neurotoxin and carcinogen.
UPS LOST THE SHIPMENT! Did they care that there might be 45 lbs of really nasty stuff lying around in one of their warehouses, perhaps dripping on packages of bundt cake being sent to Aunt Tillie? Or toxic dusts caused by the solution drying out into powder and blowing around, possibly into their employees lungs? No way! UPS could not care less.
As a result of this incident and others the company I worked for (a large multinational chemical company) pulled UPS off it's world wide list of approved shippers for hazardous materials. No hazardous products are now allowed to go out of a gate in a UPS truck.
Fedex, though - I never had a problem with shipping hazardous materials - including radioactive samples.
I bought an Asus laptop 2 years ago rebadged as a Chembook 7000C.
It has some reak drawbacks. The paint is wearing off in the wrist rest area, I can't get it to install Win 2000, and the BIOS has an extremely strange feature that requires a DOS partition to be present on the hard disk for it to boot, even if it's a Linux install.
Support for my Win2K issue has been zilch - all I got from Chembook is an audio driver and the statement 'it should work' in Win2K.
I don't think reasons 1. and 2. hold up with careful thought, as the application is still the driving force for obtaining the patent. In the case of 1, expression in any form under current law in all countries I am aware of is not patentable, regardless of the form of it's notation. As far as 2. goes, who cares? If you are clever enough to discover all potential uses of a basic, fundamental mathematical result and gain patents on their implementations, you deserve the gains from your hard work and cleverness, so long as the coverage is not overly broad for the the uses you bring to the Patent Office.
However reason 3. is very valid - in a practical sense a patent on a computer based use of an algorithm is often a patent on the algorithm itself in for all practical purposes. This is the weakness - overly broad coverage for the applicative use of an algorithm on a computer can turn into an effect patent for that algorithm.
Has this line of reasoning been used in the courts? If not, why?
Because a patent does not restrict the speaking i.e. publication, dissemination or expession of the patented matter in any way. In fact, patents themselves are by law not eligible for copyright protection in order to encourage the wide transmittal of the matter being patented. There is no restriction of speech involved.
In fact, a patent is a right of monopoly granted in exchange for full disclosure of what is being patented. Failure to fully disclose the patented is considered patent fraud, and invalidates the patent, and makes the patentee subject to other penalties as well.
The entire purpose of patent law is in fact to encourage people to publish technical art that they would otherwise tend to keep secret for economic reasons.
What is restricted is the use of the matter under patent to achieve the advantage or useful effect under the patent. This is why you can freely publish software programs like LAME that perform operations that are covered by patents - what you cannot do is put them into use without satisfying the license requirements of the patent holder.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to me that we are getting an unusual number of dupes recently.
Maybe Taco et al should work out a better way to classify incomming email, and flag the topic as posted or some such.
Besides, if you consider Redhat as a price baseline, and considering the difference in functionality, XP is worth what, about $3.00?
No, the value of Win XP is negative. It's less functional than something I can d/l for free.
Some of the best ideas are frozen in books & not in TV.
Eh. It's all in the writing. The really good sci-fi TV productions have been written by accomplished print authors like Ellison and Sturgeon.
Woe that Babylon 5 never produced the Ellison script for the sequel to "Demon with a Glass Hand".
So now getting corporate approval is the most open process available. I think I'm going to go be ill now.
Don't believe it. If you read the analysis, it appears that the corporations are against it too.
I think Enterprise rocks.
I wouldn't say that it rocks, but by god it's far better than Hercules in Space.
As far as time travel, it's like the freeken Holodeck episodes. Horrible. At least the Enterprise series doesn't have those.
Babylon 5 was good, and Farscape has it's moments - but it has gotten stale.
Otherwise it's time to read a book.
To me beauty is a concept that doesn't extend to code.
What code? To me Minsky's implementation of a Universal Turing Machine is quite beautiful.
It's very easy to understand why developers might prefer to retain control. What is not clear is whether and why society should prefer this arrangement. If society should give you this right, what does society gain in return?
Society gains my software. If I don't retain adaquate rights to my work after release, it doesn't get released. I keep it a deep dark secret. Just like the trades and guilds did their technology before the advent of patent law in the 18th century.
Of course. But the question is, what rights should you have once the cat is out of the bag, so to speak.
Indeed, what rights are you going to offer me in exchange for letting the cat out of the bag? Patent rights? Copyrights?
How about I just write a contract that gives you the right to run this program on a single computer with no writable removable media drives in exchange for a whopping monthly fee. As part of this contract you must post a big old bond that is forfeit if you don't keep the existance of this software secret except for those within your company that I approve, and you must keep this computer, and all copies of the software in a locked room inside which there is no network connectivity. Only two people, identified by you and approved by me are allowed inside this room. Any disassembly, reverse-engineering etc. forfeits the bond. We have the right to audit, inspect your premises etc. You are not allowed to use any of the software technology present in this program in your future products. (I saw this in an NDA contract once).
Are you going to make contracts like this illegal? Good luck - that means a major overhaul of our system of government.
If you don't come up with an offer of rights I consider fair, the cat stays in the bag, Sorry.
The difference being, of course, that BillG only cares about the software he bankrolls,
Actually Bill Gates' minions have been complaining about the GPL as being 'un-American'. He definitely wants to influence the license terms that software other than his own is ditributed under.
If you invented a new way of doing math, would you think that you have the right come hell or high water to keep people from using it if you wanted to?
Damn straight I do.
I completely reject the concept that I have to show anything I invent to ANYONE. Ultimately I always have the right and ability to destroy any writings, calculations or code that I author before I show it to anyone.
Given the fundamental freedom to keep my thoughts to myself, it is up to you to come up with a way to encourage me to share my inventions with others. This is what intellectual property is all about - encouraging creators to share their work. If you don't like IP, well too bad, because I am not going to give you my work just for your pleasure or convenience.
I reject your bullshit laws that throw me in prison for helping a friend out by copying software
It's not for you to reject. Copyrights and Patents are explicit contracts between the government and the author. If you don't like it, it's up to you to come up with an alternative that authors like better.
Otherwise many will just rm -rf the recipe.
Why would I want to be lumped together with a bunch of stodgy old electrical or mechanical dweebs?
Because they are responsible for all the technology you use on a daily basis?
And no, it wasn't programmers that build the first calculator. It was a stodgy old electrical dweeb.
Seriously, I think that software that is used in critical applications should be subject to competancy requirements. Like the saying goes, if our buildings were designed like our software is, the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization.
Otherwise licensing is a waste of time.
And that is how it is done in other disciplines as well. Licenses are only required for work in certain areas - otherwise anyone who can convince a company that he can do a job can work as a engineer.
Who appointed Stallman God? In his own way he is just as bad as Bill Gates, for they are both trying to dictate the terms under which we can distribute the software we write, or use the software we use that has been written by others.
I reject both of them for trying to control what I do with the code I write. When I write something, _I_ should have control under the provisions it is licensed under.
When I use software from others I have to make a choice about what license provisions I will agree to. These days I have a lot of choices. I like it that way.
I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions in this regard - and I cannot stomach the idea of others trying to make them for me.
I say keep the third world in the dark ages.
So we will live in perpetual fear of madmen like Bin Laden?
Until we have enlightenment on a global basis, we are all in danger of falling from civilization.
I was talking about the working set size, not the object file size. The smallest of Java programs requires a huge VM to be loaded into memory.
This Java program requires NO VM to be loaded. The working set size is 73K. Java can be compiled to native code, eliminating the need for the JVM.
73K is about 500 times smaller than your posited 30MB JVM.
Can someone please give me an example of *ONE* "life-threatening [felony]"
l ep ld.htm
Here is one..
In 1997 a Massachusetts teenager broke into and disabled telecommunications at Worchester airport, disabling the control tower for 6 hours.
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/juveni
I am sure there others.
C/C++ is the default language for system software.
I would say that C is the default language for system software. Not C++.
I would rather have features available then not.
I would rather have useful features than not. Much of what I see in C++ seems less useful than I would hope.
why does a 10 line Java program require a 30 megabyte VM ?
It doesn't require any such thing.
gcj -O5 --main=hello hello.java
ls -l a.out
-rwxrwxr-x 1 eric eric 73117 Nov 20 22:36 a.out
Templates. Again, you DON"T have to use them.
Templates are evil because their definitions are not type checked in parameterized form. This often leads to problems that are the devil's own work.
The fact is that C++ compilers are forced into heuristic methods for evaluating static type safety rather than the mathematical surety that Java's design permits. Which would you rather have?
Crappy software can be written in both languages. The argument that C++ automatically produces crap code is ridiculous.
I merely propose that the skill of the programmer is the primary determinant of code quality.
C++ is a STANDARD, that was reached using a democratic process.
In other words it was designed by a committee of people with no overarching vision of what the language should be. No wonder they started with a horse and arrived at a camel.
Political arguments are irrelevant when evaluating the technical merits of a language.
However, from what I've seen most of the Java code out there is PROCEDURAL.
Sturgeon's law states that 90% of everything is crap. This is overly optimistic when it comes to code.
One of the reasons that I originally learned Java is that it seems to have become the default language in much of the Design Pattern and OOP/OOD literature. Clearly there is a reason for this - and the reason is that Java is very good at expressing good ideas in software design in a clear fashion. I have found that in my own work this is a very valuable language feature.
It leads to bloat. Case in point- Limewire.
Rookie C++ code is going to be just as crappy, if not more so due to the complexity of the language as rookie Java code. Probably MUCH worse in terms of stability, too. C++ may be able to give you better performance, but it WON'T give you better code than what can be achieved in Java, and it certainly will be less stable, harder to maintain and be a less productive place to develop in.
As far as I am concerned, C++ is a design error. Indiscriminant inclusion of features the the designers now regret and a STL library that anyone who wants the performance of a compiled language needs to avoid has lead to a nightmare language.
The fact is that the biggest problems in producing good applications - stability and consistent design are not addressed by bolting OOP features onto what is really a procedural high level assembler.
C++ is a Frankenstein's Monster of a language.
you need to develop some configuration files or such for you site
Actually my preference would be to find a job where I didn't have to maintain this godawful mess.
Configuration files aren't going to help me solve the problem of having to calculate a discount based on some business rule in PHP, Java, Javascript, AND Perl depending on where you are on the site. An external library, which has been pointed out could be written in one language, then called from others is as step in the right direction - but not good enough. If the site was written in ONE language I'd be able to structure the code rationally across the whole site, and use a system like Javadoc to generate the documentation for the site.
Trying to use multiple languages seems to me to be an organizational nightmare for any programming job.
Hmmm - I spend a fair amount of my time maintaining a web site that is a mix of PHP/Java/Perl.
I hate it becaue basic functionality on the site is coded in each language, and has to be maintained or changed in at least 3 places every time an update has to be made.
So I guess I would say that the lack of ability to share working code from one language base to another in this implementation is a hell of a good reason to avoid this approach like the plague.
There is no good quantifiable measurement for intelligence.
You mean there is no generally accepted definition of intelligence.
Once you reach a conclusion as to what skills represent intelligence, it is quite clear that a test evaluating those skills is a very short step.
don't expect too much in the US. When the media is run by for-profit, private companies, instead of public supported channels like the BBC
And PBS is just what then?
The problem with media in Britain is that it's run by and controlled by the governement. In my opinion that is far worse a situation than what we have in the US. Especially given the lack of an equivalent to the First Amendment in Britain.
I once had a 5 gallon container of Acrylamide (50% solution) shipped to me via UPS by a chemical manufacturer. Packaged completely according to DOT regulations governing Class B poisons. Acrylamide is highly reactive, can self-react with a large release of heat and buildup of pressure in sealed containers, as well being as a neurotoxin and carcinogen.
UPS LOST THE SHIPMENT! Did they care that there might be 45 lbs of really nasty stuff lying around in one of their warehouses, perhaps dripping on packages of bundt cake being sent to Aunt Tillie? Or toxic dusts caused by the solution drying out into powder and blowing around, possibly into their employees lungs? No way! UPS could not care less.
As a result of this incident and others the company I worked for (a large multinational chemical company) pulled UPS off it's world wide list of approved shippers for hazardous materials. No hazardous products are now allowed to go out of a gate in a UPS truck.
Fedex, though - I never had a problem with shipping hazardous materials - including radioactive samples.
I bought an Asus laptop 2 years ago rebadged as a Chembook 7000C.
It has some reak drawbacks. The paint is wearing off in the wrist rest area, I can't get it to install Win 2000, and the BIOS has an extremely strange feature that requires a DOS partition to be present on the hard disk for it to boot, even if it's a Linux install.
Support for my Win2K issue has been zilch - all I got from Chembook is an audio driver and the statement 'it should work' in Win2K.
Never again.
I don't think reasons 1. and 2. hold up with careful thought, as the application is still the driving force for obtaining the patent. In the case of 1, expression in any form under current law in all countries I am aware of is not patentable, regardless of the form of it's notation. As far as 2. goes, who cares? If you are clever enough to discover all potential uses of a basic, fundamental mathematical result and gain patents on their implementations, you deserve the gains from your hard work and cleverness, so long as the coverage is not overly broad for the the uses you bring to the Patent Office.
However reason 3. is very valid - in a practical sense a patent on a computer based use of an algorithm is often a patent on the algorithm itself in for all practical purposes. This is the weakness - overly broad coverage for the applicative use of an algorithm on a computer can turn into an effect patent for that algorithm.
Has this line of reasoning been used in the courts? If not, why?
Because a patent does not restrict the speaking i.e. publication, dissemination or expession of the patented matter in any way. In fact, patents themselves are by law not eligible for copyright protection in order to encourage the wide transmittal of the matter being patented. There is no restriction of speech involved.
In fact, a patent is a right of monopoly granted in exchange for full disclosure of what is being patented. Failure to fully disclose the patented is considered patent fraud, and invalidates the patent, and makes the patentee subject to other penalties as well.
The entire purpose of patent law is in fact to encourage people to publish technical art that they would otherwise tend to keep secret for economic reasons.
What is restricted is the use of the matter under patent to achieve the advantage or useful effect under the patent. This is why you can freely publish software programs like LAME that perform operations that are covered by patents - what you cannot do is put them into use without satisfying the license requirements of the patent holder.