IANAL, but since you obviously didn't click "yes" on any of the record label's copyright or terms-of-use screens to get onto the P2P network, and since there's no way for them to make you view their copyright notice before you get your hands on the file, and since they are willfully giving it away for free themselves, do they own that clip anymore? Would the fact that they are deliberately giving out these clips negate any claim on enforcing the copyright of that material?
Yes, they do still own it; and no, giving things away doesn't do anything to negate your copyright claim on the material. Ask the FSF. Or read a copyright FAQ or two.
+5 insightful my ass. More like -5 totally wrong...
Okay, that's a little petty, but here's a real difference - people without TVs choose what to watch, when to watch it. People with TVs so often just sit down in front of it and then vegitate, accepting whatever crap is shovelled to them.
Tell you what, if you really want to argue that Flash applications are AJAX, go do it on Wikipedia. The article there doesn't mention Flash at all, and stresses use of the DOM which isn't ActionScript's model, so it clearly needs a lot of correction... When it says Flash applications are AJAX, come back and try telling me so again and I might listen.
Developers wishing to get a head-start building applications on top of Legals will be able to do so with our beta release in a few months.
(Emphasis mine.) What do you call code that's a few months from being ready for beta? I always heard it was called alpha.
OpenLaszlo version 3.3 is quite solid and production quality code.
And OpenLaszlo version 3.3 is not "an open source platform for creating zero-install 'AJAX' web applications", as announced in this article; rather, it's a system for building Flash applications. I don't care if you have the greatest Flash generator in the universe; that doesn't mean you have a working AJAX web application generator, let alone one that's ready to use in production.
I don't think you should call something "an open source platform for creating zero-install 'AJAX' web applications" until it actually is. Call it a project to develop a platform for creating AJAX web applications; call it a platform for developing Flash applications. Call it a platform for Flash applications that will one day also generate AJAX applications, even. Just be honest about what you have versus what you will have one day real soon now, so that you don't waste people's time. That's all I'm asking.
OpenLaszlo applications certainly are "AJAX". AJAX stands for: "Asynchronous JavaScript and XML". That's exactly what OpenLaszlo is, whether it's running on Flash or the web browser.
Flash's ActionScript is not JavaScript. And when most people say "AJAX", they mean web pages that use asynchronous JavaScript and XML, not Flash applications that do.
Note that even the text you quote to support your position says "AJAX-like" methods with Flash, admitting that Flash applications are not what we mean by AJAX even if they happen to use asynchronous XML.
Who are you to say that I am not entitled to post an announcement about an open source project on Slashdot? Who else shares your unique "school of thought" that nobody should announce anything until beta?
Yahoo and Google didn't announce their AJAX toolkits until they were usable. Apache Derby wasn't released until it was a working database you could actually use for real purposes. I'm far from alone in thinking that you shouldn't announce something like it's a real product if it's actually alpha release; that instead, you should get a first working usable release out, then have the product announcement.
If you want to post announcements saying "OpenLaszlo will one day be a toolkit for producing AJAX applications, and we'd like help developing it" then that would be fine. What I dislike is the way the announcements always seem to pretend that it's already a platform for producing AJAX applications, and only when you've had your time wasted checking the FAQs and demos do you find that the code is "pre-beta", there are only 3 demos, and only 2 of those work properly (at least in my browser).
As for all the text about how wonderful Flash is and how it was the right move for you, I really don't care. I have zero interest in developing Flash sites; I'm a web developer, not a Flash developer.
Who are you to say that I am not entitled to an opinion about how open source projects should be run?
As for reading the announcement, it says "OpenLaszlo is an open source platform for creating zero-install 'AJAX' web applications with the user interface capabilities of desktop client software"
That's deliberately misleading. Maybe OpenLaszlo will be a platform for creating AJAX web applications, but right now it's not, it's a bunch of alpha-quality code that's looking for developers. It's that habit of repeatedly making misleading announcements that pisses me off about the OpenLaszlo team.
No, I'm saying that I think you should announce things when they're actually ready. Or maybe when they're in beta.
If you want to post a request for participation, then fine, post one. But I'm tired of monthly plugs for OpenLazlo saying "Hey, we've got this great tool for developing AJAX UIs", and when I go look there are the same 3 demos and a bunch of pre-alpha code in CVS.
Google didn't announce their AJAX toolkit until it was usable. Ditto Yahoo.
Well, looking at the same demos, I see the same 3 as were working the last time the thing was advertised on Slashdot, and the blog notes that a bunch of basic controls don't work properly and the thing's still in alpha. I'm of the "get a working release *then* announce it" school, I'm afraid.
I'm sick of hearing about what OpenLazlo will do one day. They still haven't released the final 1.0 version of their DHTML-targeting back end, and now they're hyping up how it'll produce J2ME as well?
I'm not going to touch it while the stable version only targets Flash.
Yeah, I proposed basically the same idea elsewhere in this thread, and "on my web site back in Feb 2005.
My idea, though, is that we have a widely published campaign with a set starting date that's at least a year in the future. So organizations have absolutely no excuse.
Right. The problem isn't your employer using your SSN to identify who you are uniquely. The problem is dumbass companies that pretend that knowledge of your SSN proves you are that person.
I've written before that there's actually a free market solution to the problem. What it needs is for some well-funded activists (Gilmore?) to put together a nice big database of SSN info. We know all that info is available to any company that wants it.
Then, public announcements are prominently made in the press (NYT ads, paper mail notifications to every major bank and so on) stating that on 2008-01-01, the entire database will be made public for search purposes on the Internet. On that day, you'll be able to look up and verify anyone's SSN for free. That's the way it should be, after all--it's an identification number, not a password, and anyone can look it up for $20 from one of the many online services. We're just going to change the price.
This means that any organization currently using SSN as a secret identifier basically has to stop doing so, or face massive fraud and consequent liability lawsuits.
You've been reading Slashdot how long? You must have seen all the articles about how Microsoft's toxic and dysfunctional culture destroys innovation and quality. When's the last time they shipped something truly innovative, or even better than the competition?
One of the ACs has it right. If you even have to ask the question, you deserve to end up at Microsoft.
That was my first thought. If you want the system to be secure, step #1 is to ensure that there is no proprietary binary-only firmware that you can't check for bugs and that people can't fix and redistribute themselves.
If your wife goes missing in suspicious circumstances and you have 2 brain cells to rub together, you know you're going to be the #1 suspect. That being the case, only a total dumbass--or a man in blind panic--would go and buy books on how murder investigations are carried out, particularly immediately after the disappearance.
And I too would like to see GPG there by default, encouraging users to use it.
S/MIME is there by default, why not use that? Then your signatures instantly work with Lotus Notes, Apple Mail, and Outlook, no plugins or extras required.
If you can't trademark a user interface, how come Apple have done so? How come Pepsi went around registering a particular shade of blue soda can as their trademark? You should perhaps read about design trademarks, they're becoming increasingly popular.
And I don't see it as an "intentional gap", any more than the TiVo loophole was an "intentional gap". It seems clear to me that RMS doesn't see it as an intentional gap either; the only question is whether it's a dangerous enough one that it should be worried about, and whether it's one that can feasibly be closed.
No, I'm saying that you're about 1% correct, because about 1% of Dell machines are not sold as Windows PCs, and my point is 99% correct and still stands.
No, it's a loophole, because trademarks do not just apply to names. The fact that Mozilla are only making the artwork and name non-redistributable doesn't prevent other companies from using the same principle to lock up the fundamental design of the user interface.
For example, Apple could use GPL software to develop an iPod-like music player, release the source, and still prevent people from redistributing or using it by invoking trademark protection on their trademarked iPod graphical appearance. Sure, you could strip out all the graphics and redesign the UI and rework the code appropriately. You shouldn't have to for free software, though.
Slashdot Mirror
You know you can change the commands on the various screens, right? Put disc change buttons on the "Play a DVD" screen?
Yes, they do still own it; and no, giving things away doesn't do anything to negate your copyright claim on the material. Ask the FSF. Or read a copyright FAQ or two.
+5 insightful my ass. More like -5 totally wrong...
So TiVo users don't watch TV?
I never just sit down and watch whatever's on.
WoW has spyware, and I don't see Blizzard hurting for sales.
In fact, I bet many of the people pontificating about how they won't buy BF2142 are WoW players.
Tell you what, if you really want to argue that Flash applications are AJAX, go do it on Wikipedia. The article there doesn't mention Flash at all, and stresses use of the DOM which isn't ActionScript's model, so it clearly needs a lot of correction... When it says Flash applications are AJAX, come back and try telling me so again and I might listen.
The OpenChrome source is based on open source code provided by VIA. Says so right on their web site.
Quoting the web site:
(Emphasis mine.) What do you call code that's a few months from being ready for beta? I always heard it was called alpha.
And OpenLaszlo version 3.3 is not "an open source platform for creating zero-install 'AJAX' web applications", as announced in this article; rather, it's a system for building Flash applications. I don't care if you have the greatest Flash generator in the universe; that doesn't mean you have a working AJAX web application generator, let alone one that's ready to use in production.
I don't think you should call something "an open source platform for creating zero-install 'AJAX' web applications" until it actually is. Call it a project to develop a platform for creating AJAX web applications; call it a platform for developing Flash applications. Call it a platform for Flash applications that will one day also generate AJAX applications, even. Just be honest about what you have versus what you will have one day real soon now, so that you don't waste people's time. That's all I'm asking.
Flash's ActionScript is not JavaScript. And when most people say "AJAX", they mean web pages that use asynchronous JavaScript and XML, not Flash applications that do.
Note that even the text you quote to support your position says "AJAX-like" methods with Flash, admitting that Flash applications are not what we mean by AJAX even if they happen to use asynchronous XML.
Yahoo and Google didn't announce their AJAX toolkits until they were usable. Apache Derby wasn't released until it was a working database you could actually use for real purposes. I'm far from alone in thinking that you shouldn't announce something like it's a real product if it's actually alpha release; that instead, you should get a first working usable release out, then have the product announcement.
If you want to post announcements saying "OpenLaszlo will one day be a toolkit for producing AJAX applications, and we'd like help developing it" then that would be fine. What I dislike is the way the announcements always seem to pretend that it's already a platform for producing AJAX applications, and only when you've had your time wasted checking the FAQs and demos do you find that the code is "pre-beta", there are only 3 demos, and only 2 of those work properly (at least in my browser).
As for all the text about how wonderful Flash is and how it was the right move for you, I really don't care. I have zero interest in developing Flash sites; I'm a web developer, not a Flash developer.
Who are you to say that I am not entitled to an opinion about how open source projects should be run?
As for reading the announcement, it says "OpenLaszlo is an open source platform for creating zero-install 'AJAX' web applications with the user interface capabilities of desktop client software"
That's deliberately misleading. Maybe OpenLaszlo will be a platform for creating AJAX web applications, but right now it's not, it's a bunch of alpha-quality code that's looking for developers. It's that habit of repeatedly making misleading announcements that pisses me off about the OpenLaszlo team.
No, I'm saying that I think you should announce things when they're actually ready. Or maybe when they're in beta.
If you want to post a request for participation, then fine, post one. But I'm tired of monthly plugs for OpenLazlo saying "Hey, we've got this great tool for developing AJAX UIs", and when I go look there are the same 3 demos and a bunch of pre-alpha code in CVS.
Google didn't announce their AJAX toolkit until it was usable. Ditto Yahoo.
Well, looking at the same demos, I see the same 3 as were working the last time the thing was advertised on Slashdot, and the blog notes that a bunch of basic controls don't work properly and the thing's still in alpha. I'm of the "get a working release *then* announce it" school, I'm afraid.
I'm sick of hearing about what OpenLazlo will do one day. They still haven't released the final 1.0 version of their DHTML-targeting back end, and now they're hyping up how it'll produce J2ME as well?
I'm not going to touch it while the stable version only targets Flash.
Yeah, I proposed basically the same idea elsewhere in this thread, and "on my web site back in Feb 2005.
My idea, though, is that we have a widely published campaign with a set starting date that's at least a year in the future. So organizations have absolutely no excuse.
Right. The problem isn't your employer using your SSN to identify who you are uniquely. The problem is dumbass companies that pretend that knowledge of your SSN proves you are that person.
I've written before that there's actually a free market solution to the problem. What it needs is for some well-funded activists (Gilmore?) to put together a nice big database of SSN info. We know all that info is available to any company that wants it.
Then, public announcements are prominently made in the press (NYT ads, paper mail notifications to every major bank and so on) stating that on 2008-01-01, the entire database will be made public for search purposes on the Internet. On that day, you'll be able to look up and verify anyone's SSN for free. That's the way it should be, after all--it's an identification number, not a password, and anyone can look it up for $20 from one of the many online services. We're just going to change the price.
This means that any organization currently using SSN as a secret identifier basically has to stop doing so, or face massive fraud and consequent liability lawsuits.
You've been reading Slashdot how long? You must have seen all the articles about how Microsoft's toxic and dysfunctional culture destroys innovation and quality. When's the last time they shipped something truly innovative, or even better than the competition?
One of the ACs has it right. If you even have to ask the question, you deserve to end up at Microsoft.
That was my first thought. If you want the system to be secure, step #1 is to ensure that there is no proprietary binary-only firmware that you can't check for bugs and that people can't fix and redistribute themselves.
OK, congratulations, that's the first Hans Reiser joke I've actually laughed at.
I'm so going to hell now.
Umm, Russian bride. You can mail order them.
If your wife goes missing in suspicious circumstances and you have 2 brain cells to rub together, you know you're going to be the #1 suspect. That being the case, only a total dumbass--or a man in blind panic--would go and buy books on how murder investigations are carried out, particularly immediately after the disappearance.
I agree that Brooklyn, NY is a piece of shit, but Jose Padilla quite likes it, and Chicago's not as bad as you're saying.
S/MIME is there by default, why not use that? Then your signatures instantly work with Lotus Notes, Apple Mail, and Outlook, no plugins or extras required.
It isn't, which is why I ditched it.
If you can't trademark a user interface, how come Apple have done so? How come Pepsi went around registering a particular shade of blue soda can as their trademark? You should perhaps read about design trademarks, they're becoming increasingly popular.
And I don't see it as an "intentional gap", any more than the TiVo loophole was an "intentional gap". It seems clear to me that RMS doesn't see it as an intentional gap either; the only question is whether it's a dangerous enough one that it should be worried about, and whether it's one that can feasibly be closed.
No, I'm saying that you're about 1% correct, because about 1% of Dell machines are not sold as Windows PCs, and my point is 99% correct and still stands.
No, it's a loophole, because trademarks do not just apply to names. The fact that Mozilla are only making the artwork and name non-redistributable doesn't prevent other companies from using the same principle to lock up the fundamental design of the user interface.
For example, Apple could use GPL software to develop an iPod-like music player, release the source, and still prevent people from redistributing or using it by invoking trademark protection on their trademarked iPod graphical appearance. Sure, you could strip out all the graphics and redesign the UI and rework the code appropriately. You shouldn't have to for free software, though.