I think Microsoft's focus on maintaining a Monopoly has led to paralysis. Anything that might break some form of backwards compatibility or break some piece of hardware or software is not considered. They aim to please >90% of the market. They have not used innovation to control that market share. I'm not saying they haven't innovated, they have such a huge amount of resources, some innovation is inevitable. But having recently switched to a Mac I can see that all the innovation on the OS side of things seems to be happening at Apple.
Since they've had no strong reasons to innovate, they are stagnating. The have the market. They can make potent threats rather than innovate. Without the threat of MS not developing Office for Mac, surely Apple would have developed it's own innovative office Suite by now. (perhaps someday still iWork will evolve into that). Windows, and office have remained largely unchanged for the past 10 years.
Uhm, nothing in the press release I'm assuming this article was based on suggests that the RIAA endorses this product or is even considering it, just that the company demoed it for the RIAA.
I hope this isn't a trend, "Hey we've got a large audience of people who hate the RIAA! Let's publish articles that suggest they are up to devious tactics, even when we have absolutely no proof that they are. Our readers will love that! Our ads will get more clicks! Everyone's happy!"
Because many corporations only have licenses for XP that can only be used as an upgrade. If there is no OS on the machine already, then it cant be upgraded.
::Sigh::...if only companies weren't so damn risk-averse, maybe society could progress a bit.
Is it companies that are so damn risk-averse? Or people? You make an interesting comparision to Clear Channel, but why are they so big? Risk! Listening othe radio is a low-risk proposition for the listener. You can turn on your favorite radio station and be pretty sure that you are going to get some music you like. So you basically take what Big Radio feeds you, because you know they won't play anything that puts everyone off.
But you could go hunting down some CD's from indeoendent artists, people you;ve never heard of, but the risk is that most of the stuff you will find will suck and be a waste of your time.
We make Big Radio Big. We are lazy. And we don't want that risk.
Uhm, right. So it takes a threat from open source to get them to do something that they most likely would have done a long time ago if they weren't a monoploly.
Thank you! OK, everything is fine except with regards to point 3. Isn't it trademark and not copyright that prevents the use of the names ad logos? Or does the Mozilla License put in place additional encumbrance with regards to copyright? ( I think that is what you are saying). So the end result is the same for the GPL or some other Open/Free license, but in the case of the Mozilla License copyright is the issue and not trademark?
I feel your pain. I respect the need for trademarks, but man there's an awful lot of fanship for Mozilla out there, and if there's really only one f-ing t-shirt to express it that is REALLY lame. I wish I knew the answer. Maybe some sort of madatory cut? (which would be impossible to enforce:-( ) Fans and fanatics havea lot of energy that if channeled the right way can spread and grow. Creating a side busieness off of fandom only via the original owner of a brand is quite limiting, albiet convenient.
Can you expand on this? Why would Debian have to call them other names and not use the logos? Isn't because they are modyfying the source? What specifically is bad about this? AbiWord is GPL. If Debian modifies the source of that, don't the lose the right ot call it AbiWord and use any trademarked Artwork as well? I think we're all confused.:-)
Exactly. If only I had mod points and hadn't already jumped in this discussion. An apple is an apple. I would not want Monsanto modyfing the gene sequence of an apple so that it also produces a meat-like protein to make it tastier and still call it an apple! Alas no one has trademarked the word apple!;-)
I absolutely agree here. I must be missing something. If Debian et al. makes some patches to the source and doesn't submit them, or doesn't have the time to wait for them to be integrated into the main source, what even in the GPL gives them the right to call it Mozilla Firefox? I sympathize with the fact that perhaps they are fed up with certain bugs and decide to fix them on there own, or perhaps they want to make certain customizations to make the build more Debian friendly, but that does not give them the right to take advantage of the Firefox trademark. Call it Debian Browser (tm) or what have you. And/or work with the developers to create more versatile preferences so your customizations don't have to delve into the source.
Perhaps I've reached the crux of the matter here. There are preferences and there is source. Both can be modified to accomplish the same thing: slight modifications in funcitonality to help the fit and finish of an operating system. I don't think the Mozilla team should budge in this issue. I think the Debian folks just need to decide how important the Mozilla trademark and fame, if you will, is to there distribution and either distribute the program unmodified or give it their own name and use icons that don't infringe on the Mozilla foundations' trademarks.
This article reminds me why (if I remember correctly) GPL was created in the first place. Some of the ideas he talks about just seem so absurd. Companies hording ideas(IP in this case), cash, resources(bright coders, etc) and creating, via lawsuits and EULA's, an artificial barrier around their 'idea pool'.
Microsoft, et al. would very much like starve GNOME/KDE and Linux of IP and innovation it seems. Hell, I go even futher as to say starve the whole world. Is it just me or doesn't seem like that's what many US conglomorations are about. Hording resources, creating artificial scarcity and PROFIT!!!
The GPL is the perfect antidote. In the case of software, innovations can very easily benifit everyone. Everything is shared, including ideas. Instead of starving your fellow humans so you can charge them a nice hefty check, you feed them,... and amzingly some of them feed you back! (they take your ideas and build on them, or more directly, donate resources to you).
As a final note, look, I know this is the real world. We all have to survive, companies want to survive, but I can't handle the amount of greed and hording that has come as a product of the "greed is good" philosophy of modern corporate culture. Too many people in this world our just customers to suck cash and vitality out of.
What is your point exactly? These lawsuits follow a very similar line of thought. No they are not patent lawsuits per se, but if they were the strategy would be the same. Do you think Eric was smoking crack to say that the logic of the statement "If there is any innovation in Linux it will violate IP" is bogus?
Has anybody stopped to think how this will be implemented? An ATA, which is the converter that allows you regular POTS phone to be hooked up to your internet connection, can be hooked up to any internet connection, anywhere. How is the VoIP company supposed to determine where you actually are? The answer... wait for it.... They can't! Think about it. There is no way for them to know where your converter(ATA) is located because you can pick it up and move it anywhere you want. If they implement this , then there will have to be some major limitations on how you can use VoIP. I guess you would have to be prohibited from moving the device, and would have to tell them every time you change ISP's.
The Caller ID, in its original implementation, though... sheer brilliance. "Let's make them pay to see the information that's already sent to the the switchbox! And if they don't like that, make them pay to HIDE the information on the switchbox. But that doesn't really hide it, it just flags it, so make them pay to see the HIDDEN information, or make them pay to REALLY hide it. We can go on like this forever."
That's exactly why I switched to Vonage. Free Caller ID, call transfer, etc.
Wouldn't this be a great application of Mesh networking? I see a lot of posts about grounding issues, and other complexities of wiring a 4 story building. I thought the whole point of mesh is to get around this, and is a great way to provide internet access in hard to reach areas or areas that are impracticle to wire. In fact the Linksys WRT54g with the Sveasoft firmware can connect to up to 3 other routers. With the right equipment, you can throw a half dozen or so routers around the complex and you're all set. You only need ethernet going into one router from the ISP, everything else is wireless. (Security/encryption though might be a headache.)
(For those of you you have no clue what mesh networking is (like me) it basically allows you to broadcast internet access over a wide area with 802.11 via several wireless routers that kind of act as repeaters and share internet access among each other)
We have something like this in the states. 802.11 wireless towers are popping up everywhere. In chicago there is a company DLS that provides a symmetric 10mbit connection for 65/month.
Slashdot Mirror
That's some great reporting TBO.com is doing!
I think Microsoft's focus on maintaining a Monopoly has led to paralysis. Anything that might break some form of backwards compatibility or break some piece of hardware or software is not considered. They aim to please >90% of the market. They have not used innovation to control that market share. I'm not saying they haven't innovated, they have such a huge amount of resources, some innovation is inevitable. But having recently switched to a Mac I can see that all the innovation on the OS side of things seems to be happening at Apple.
Since they've had no strong reasons to innovate, they are stagnating. The have the market. They can make potent threats rather than innovate. Without the threat of MS not developing Office for Mac, surely Apple would have developed it's own innovative office Suite by now. (perhaps someday still iWork will evolve into that). Windows, and office have remained largely unchanged for the past 10 years.
Not out of Inexpensive Desks either.
Uhm, nothing in the press release I'm assuming this article was based on suggests that the RIAA endorses this product or is even considering it, just that the company demoed it for the RIAA.
I hope this isn't a trend, "Hey we've got a large audience of people who hate the RIAA! Let's publish articles that suggest they are up to devious tactics, even when we have absolutely no proof that they are. Our readers will love that! Our ads will get more clicks! Everyone's happy!"
Regards,
Tim
Not an RIAA fan
Because many corporations only have licenses for XP that can only be used as an upgrade. If there is no OS on the machine already, then it cant be upgraded.
You're full of shit.
::Sigh::...if only companies weren't so damn risk-averse, maybe society could progress a bit.
Is it companies that are so damn risk-averse? Or people? You make an interesting comparision to Clear Channel, but why are they so big? Risk! Listening othe radio is a low-risk proposition for the listener. You can turn on your favorite radio station and be pretty sure that you are going to get some music you like. So you basically take what Big Radio feeds you, because you know they won't play anything that puts everyone off.
But you could go hunting down some CD's from indeoendent artists, people you;ve never heard of, but the risk is that most of the stuff you will find will suck and be a waste of your time.
We make Big Radio Big. We are lazy. And we don't want that risk.
Uhm, right. So it takes a threat from open source to get them to do something that they most likely would have done a long time ago if they weren't a monoploly.
Sorry I don't see your point.
You just knocked me up side the head with a good point.
Thank you! OK, everything is fine except with regards to point 3. Isn't it trademark and not copyright that prevents the use of the names ad logos? Or does the Mozilla License put in place additional encumbrance with regards to copyright? ( I think that is what you are saying). So the end result is the same for the GPL or some other Open/Free license, but in the case of the Mozilla License copyright is the issue and not trademark?
I feel your pain. I respect the need for trademarks, but man there's an awful lot of fanship for Mozilla out there, and if there's really only one f-ing t-shirt to express it that is REALLY lame. I wish I knew the answer. Maybe some sort of madatory cut? (which would be impossible to enforce :-( ) Fans and fanatics havea lot of energy that if channeled the right way can spread and grow. Creating a side busieness off of fandom only via the original owner of a brand is quite limiting, albiet convenient.
Clue to a coward: Firefox would have come before Flyerfox.
Can you expand on this? Why would Debian have to call them other names and not use the logos? Isn't because they are modyfying the source? What specifically is bad about this? AbiWord is GPL. If Debian modifies the source of that, don't the lose the right ot call it AbiWord and use any trademarked Artwork as well? I think we're all confused. :-)
Exactly. If only I had mod points and hadn't already jumped in this discussion. An apple is an apple. I would not want Monsanto modyfing the gene sequence of an apple so that it also produces a meat-like protein to make it tastier and still call it an apple! Alas no one has trademarked the word apple! ;-)
Huh? Your comment would make sense if they called it Debian FlyerFox.
I absolutely agree here. I must be missing something. If Debian et al. makes some patches to the source and doesn't submit them, or doesn't have the time to wait for them to be integrated into the main source, what even in the GPL gives them the right to call it Mozilla Firefox? I sympathize with the fact that perhaps they are fed up with certain bugs and decide to fix them on there own, or perhaps they want to make certain customizations to make the build more Debian friendly, but that does not give them the right to take advantage of the Firefox trademark. Call it Debian Browser (tm) or what have you. And/or work with the developers to create more versatile preferences so your customizations don't have to delve into the source.
Perhaps I've reached the crux of the matter here. There are preferences and there is source. Both can be modified to accomplish the same thing: slight modifications in funcitonality to help the fit and finish of an operating system. I don't think the Mozilla team should budge in this issue. I think the Debian folks just need to decide how important the Mozilla trademark and fame, if you will, is to there distribution and either distribute the program unmodified or give it their own name and use icons that don't infringe on the Mozilla foundations' trademarks.
This article reminds me why (if I remember correctly) GPL was created in the first place. Some of the ideas he talks about just seem so absurd. Companies hording ideas(IP in this case), cash, resources(bright coders, etc) and creating, via lawsuits and EULA's, an artificial barrier around their 'idea pool'.
... and amzingly some of them feed you back! (they take your ideas and build on them, or more directly, donate resources to you).
Microsoft, et al. would very much like starve GNOME/KDE and Linux of IP and innovation it seems. Hell, I go even futher as to say starve the whole world. Is it just me or doesn't seem like that's what many US conglomorations are about. Hording resources, creating artificial scarcity and PROFIT!!!
The GPL is the perfect antidote. In the case of software, innovations can very easily benifit everyone. Everything is shared, including ideas. Instead of starving your fellow humans so you can charge them a nice hefty check, you feed them,
As a final note, look, I know this is the real world. We all have to survive, companies want to survive, but I can't handle the amount of greed and hording that has come as a product of the "greed is good" philosophy of modern corporate culture. Too many people in this world our just customers to suck cash and vitality out of.
Regards,
Tim
What is your point exactly? These lawsuits follow a very similar line of thought. No they are not patent lawsuits per se, but if they were the strategy would be the same. Do you think Eric was smoking crack to say that the logic of the statement "If there is any innovation in Linux it will violate IP" is bogus?
Has anybody stopped to think how this will be implemented? An ATA, which is the converter that allows you regular POTS phone to be hooked up to your internet connection, can be hooked up to any internet connection, anywhere. How is the VoIP company supposed to determine where you actually are? The answer... wait for it....
They can't!
Think about it. There is no way for them to know where your converter(ATA) is located because you can pick it up and move it anywhere you want.
If they implement this , then there will have to be some major limitations on how you can use VoIP. I guess you would have to be prohibited from moving the device, and would have to tell them every time you change ISP's.
Tou mean like, light?
That's exactly why I switched to Vonage. Free Caller ID, call transfer, etc.
Wouldn't this be a great application of Mesh networking? I see a lot of posts about grounding issues, and other complexities of wiring a 4 story building. I thought the whole point of mesh is to get around this, and is a great way to provide internet access in hard to reach areas or areas that are impracticle to wire. In fact the Linksys WRT54g with the Sveasoft firmware can connect to up to 3 other routers. With the right equipment, you can throw a half dozen or so routers around the complex and you're all set. You only need ethernet going into one router from the ISP, everything else is wireless. (Security/encryption though might be a headache.)
(For those of you you have no clue what mesh networking is (like me) it basically allows you to broadcast internet access over a wide area with 802.11 via several wireless routers that kind of act as repeaters and share internet access among each other)
Well, then they would be just like msn.com.
We have something like this in the states. 802.11 wireless towers are popping up everywhere. In chicago there is a company DLS that provides a symmetric 10mbit connection for 65/month.
Hmm, but the the only things I had ever used bittorrent for were legit(I'm not kidding). Oh well.