Researchers have been clamoring for this since at least 1995.
It's about time. Entire libraries should be digitized and and available to all by now - the least we can do is make lifesaving biomedical technology available without a torturous middleman content industry.
It's difficult to really fault the company - in the end it is their product (no one debates that) and they have every right to charge what they wish.
Bullshit. It doesn't have to be illegal to be a rotten thing to do. You absolutely can fault them for it- they are abusing the idea ownership system by creating an open standard then closing it up.
Robert Byrd, Dem Senator from West Virginia, had this to say about Bush's prospective attack on Iraq without a congressional declaration of war, and I paraphrase:
"Sheep would not be so easily led to the slaughter if they knew to ask 'where are you taking us'... and could get an honest answer."
Dude, what are you talking about? No one is being strong armed into releasing code, they just wouldn't be eligible to compete if they don't open their source- that's their *choice*.
An "extremely well written specification" might specify that the code must come with the app, mightn't it?
What if the architects who designed the presidential command and control station for nuclear emergencies didn't want to hand over the design documents for that installation. Do you think the government would have a case to say that they have a right to see how the place is laid out in that case? If we can't see and check the design plans, how do we know they didn't install a secret back door for someone else?
You may not have the balls to flout your naughty bits, but then you don't have the attention of the press when you do so either. Perens, as an HP exec and open source/free software elder, does have that attention.
It is precisely what he has to lose, and who he is, that makes his message so powerful. A real shame that he's backed down.
when a user installs an application on UNIX, he does not expect that application to install random files in arbitrary directories all over the filesystem. There is no registry in UNIX and no guarantee that the application won't be relocated to another system.
I wish that this were true, but "make install" typically writes to a lib directory, a bin directory, and runs ld to update the library directory listings. Thank goodness it's not a binary-only registry like windows has (ld.so.conf is pretty simple to grok once you know why it's there), but it's not as simple as you make it out to be.
This, in fact, is the only reason I use rpms on my redhat boxen- it's a lot easier to uninstall a package than a tarball that has had "make install" run because the package management software keeps track of where all the files were installed for you.
our company has installed special "anti-fun" headsets on all employee units. We called them "shit-colored glasses" for a while until Helen lost her job for saying it at a staff meeting; now we just call them "productivity goggles".
They are some pretty amazing technology- they filter out bright colors from your field of vision so you won't be distracted, and they give you a mild electrical shock (akin to the type of therapy used to treat homosexuality in the '50's) whenever you have a creative thought. It's pretty amazing, you can really focus on what you set out to do so long as it's mind-numbingly banal.
But other than that working for the MPAA isn't too bad.
I'm tired of people bashing the Xbox based on its parent company. Fight MS on the PC side, but let them try to create some competition in the console market.
Yes, the best way to fight a monopoly is definitely to encourage them to compete in *new* markets, that's got to be good for consumers.
We may be buffoons, but we are surely not "bafoons".
Free registration required, except of course for pirates. Yarr!
Calling these land lubbers pirates gives the real pirates a serious reputation problem.
Re:What does this mean for the industry as a whole
on
Salon in Dire Straits
·
· Score: 2
Mod me flamebait if you will, but you must admit that it is a big sin here to admit that you believe in Capitalism and suppor those who try to make a living selling anything that has to do with intellectual property.
You won't be modded flamebait, but you're contradicting yourself. You say you believe in capitalism, which holds that the best distribution of resources comes from free competition. Then you imply that those who support capitalism must support government imposed monopolies in the form of intellectual property.
WTF?
I mean, that's the very essence of a planned economy- give monopolies to industry and trust them to still bother to serve their customers.
And lets not even get started on the small inventor crap. Everyone knows the ip system only works for those who can afford lots of expensive lawyers, and that means a few big companies call the shots. Much like soviet state industries.
I know this is all a bit off topic, but you seem like you're not actually a troll, just an angry conservative who hasn't thought through the princples behind the ip system all the way. The free market *demands* the dissolution of the idea ownership system.
What are you *talking* about? If what you're saying is true, then all of idSoftware's maps would now be free, because the q1/q2 engines have been GPL'd. As it turns out, the GPL only applies to part of that program.
Furthermore, the copyright holders can relicense under something other than GPL so you can still play your idea-ownership games if you must.
The real potential for these devices lies in giving individuals the inalienable right to surveil their personal surroundings at all times. Attach a tiny mic and webcam to this device. Goodbye police brutality. Human rights abuses? Perfect, realtime, documentation.
Sure there's problems, but if airplanes get blackboxes, humans surely deserve something similar.
Propose this in congress, and watch which agencies get themselves bent out of shape. Ask yourself what they have to lose from such a device.
3. The Access back-end. As I said, nobody buys Access because it's a great database.
Yeah, and they'll never improve that back end because it drives sales of SQL server. Let me make this perfectly clear: making Access a better product would cannibalize sales of SQL Server, so MS will never make it good
Making good products is at odds with market segmentation. This is one of the fundamental benefits of free software- there is no market segmentation for code so the perfect never becomes the enemy of the good, as we see in the Access situation.
We're the ones who want anyone to be able to either make a derivative work, or to preserve the canonical one as necessary.
Re:reasonable request
on
Debian And WineX
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Screw you.
I gave them my money even though I don't have a machine I can run their games on- at the time my fastest machine was 200 mhz, and that thing was *not* running diablo II under wine, trust me.
I gave them money because they made a promise to release the source code when they had enough people give them their money. I gave them my money because I supported their stated goals.
They seem to have wavered in their resolve to do so. I will be writing them to ask for a refund.
Legal != right. They got my money by misleading me, whether technically illegal or not it still bites.
It's suddenly become fashionable to bash Stallman on Slashdot. How odd.
Anyway, your point is wrong-headed. Think about what gets said when people discuss GPL'd game software- people say "GPL is important for infrastructure, not for entertainment". They say when it counts open standards are important but when it's trivial it's ok to be closed.
Well, this is a serious infrastructure issue and Stallman has every right to be upset about it.
Your twist of the word freedom is easily parried- the freedom to take away others' freedom is not a freedom at all. The GPL position is internally consistent.
And finally, your attack, like so many here today, is premised on an ad hominem argument- you're attacking Stallman, not his argument.
I was kind of hoping that the pop-under concept would languish forever in the public domain. Now that the intellectual property system is involved, we're in for an era of non-stop popundervation! Now we have to wait 17 years until there's no profit in pop-under ads again. Phooey.
The two views you describe are 100% compatible both with each other and with a conservative outlook on economics. The first (Rawls) is a description of the degree to which we ought to tolerate property. The second (I'd say you lifted it from Locke, but you don't specify) merely identifies a way to distribute property once we're convinced we should have it, i.e., according to who labored for it.
But of course that theory has a couple problems- it takes away the right to inheritance which I'm sure you'll support, and it ignores the fact that once the intellectual product has been created, all the labor is done. Now comes the part where you control what other people do with your "property", even if you've already sold it to them. Stallman's approach ties ownership rights more tightly to the labor that's actually done.
I could go on but I"ll be late for work. I have to go labor for my fair share of the pie so I can take advantage of my right to property as a wage-slave. Thanks for your religious devotion to the economic status quo, buddy.
Stallman is not on the left
on
The Stallman Factor
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Stallman is on the right wing of the techno-political world. He wants to eliminate all governmental interference in the creation and use of code, and that starts with eliminating government sponsored monopolies over ideas, otherwise known as the "intellectual property" system. Isn't "That government is best that governs least" a conservative rallying cry?
I think the reason you think he's on the left is because he looks like a hippy and he doesn't support government subsidies for the corporate masters of programmers.
And how can you say the author of emacs has no practical value?
Slashdot Mirror
Researchers have been clamoring for this since at least 1995.
It's about time. Entire libraries should be digitized and and available to all by now - the least we can do is make lifesaving biomedical technology available without a torturous middleman content industry.
It's difficult to really fault the company - in the end it is their product (no one debates that) and they have every right to charge what they wish.
Bullshit. It doesn't have to be illegal to be a rotten thing to do. You absolutely can fault them for it- they are abusing the idea ownership system by creating an open standard then closing it up.
Legal != Moral, much less decent.
Robert Byrd, Dem Senator from West Virginia, had this to say about Bush's prospective attack on Iraq without a congressional declaration of war, and I paraphrase:
"Sheep would not be so easily led to the slaughter if they knew to ask 'where are you taking us'... and could get an honest answer."
Classic.
You're right, it's not the same as making it open source- only the customers have the right to see it. Basically, all U.S. Citizens.
Ever hear the phrase "We the people"?
QED.
Dude, what are you talking about? No one is being strong armed into releasing code, they just wouldn't be eligible to compete if they don't open their source- that's their *choice*.
An "extremely well written specification" might specify that the code must come with the app, mightn't it?
What if the architects who designed the presidential command and control station for nuclear emergencies didn't want to hand over the design documents for that installation. Do you think the government would have a case to say that they have a right to see how the place is laid out in that case? If we can't see and check the design plans, how do we know they didn't install a secret back door for someone else?
Heh,
sounds like the wall of bone spell in diablo2.
With power comes responsibility.
You may not have the balls to flout your naughty bits, but then you don't have the attention of the press when you do so either. Perens, as an HP exec and open source/free software elder, does have that attention.
It is precisely what he has to lose, and who he is, that makes his message so powerful. A real shame that he's backed down.
when a user installs an application on UNIX, he does not expect that application to install random files in arbitrary directories all over the filesystem. There is no registry in UNIX and no guarantee that the application won't be relocated to another system.
I wish that this were true, but "make install" typically writes to a lib directory, a bin directory, and runs ld to update the library directory listings. Thank goodness it's not a binary-only registry like windows has (ld.so.conf is pretty simple to grok once you know why it's there), but it's not as simple as you make it out to be.
This, in fact, is the only reason I use rpms on my redhat boxen- it's a lot easier to uninstall a package than a tarball that has had "make install" run because the package management software keeps track of where all the files were installed for you.
our company has installed special "anti-fun" headsets on all employee units. We called them "shit-colored glasses" for a while until Helen lost her job for saying it at a staff meeting; now we just call them "productivity goggles".
They are some pretty amazing technology- they filter out bright colors from your field of vision so you won't be distracted, and they give you a mild electrical shock (akin to the type of therapy used to treat homosexuality in the '50's) whenever you have a creative thought. It's pretty amazing, you can really focus on what you set out to do so long as it's mind-numbingly banal.
But other than that working for the MPAA isn't too bad.
I'm tired of people bashing the Xbox based on its parent company. Fight MS on the PC side, but let them try to create some competition in the console market.
Yes, the best way to fight a monopoly is definitely to encourage them to compete in *new* markets, that's got to be good for consumers.
We may be buffoons, but we are surely not "bafoons".
Those aren't pirates.
These are pirates.
Free registration required, except of course for pirates. Yarr!
Calling these land lubbers pirates gives the real pirates a serious reputation problem.
Mod me flamebait if you will, but you must admit that it is a big sin here to admit that you believe in Capitalism and suppor those who try to make a living selling anything that has to do with intellectual property.
You won't be modded flamebait, but you're contradicting yourself. You say you believe in capitalism, which holds that the best distribution of resources comes from free competition. Then you imply that those who support capitalism must support government imposed monopolies in the form of intellectual property.
WTF?
I mean, that's the very essence of a planned economy- give monopolies to industry and trust them to still bother to serve their customers.
And lets not even get started on the small inventor crap. Everyone knows the ip system only works for those who can afford lots of expensive lawyers, and that means a few big companies call the shots. Much like soviet state industries.
I know this is all a bit off topic, but you seem like you're not actually a troll, just an angry conservative who hasn't thought through the princples behind the ip system all the way. The free market *demands* the dissolution of the idea ownership system.
Watch Demolition Man.
Unless you like the idea of having your eye on a pencil, this is a *bad idea*.
OpenOffice.org is even more inconvenient to say than "Gnu/Linux".
No way, man.
What are you *talking* about? If what you're saying is true, then all of idSoftware's maps would now be free, because the q1/q2 engines have been GPL'd. As it turns out, the GPL only applies to part of that program.
Furthermore, the copyright holders can relicense under something other than GPL so you can still play your idea-ownership games if you must.
The real potential for these devices lies in giving individuals the inalienable right to surveil their personal surroundings at all times. Attach a tiny mic and webcam to this device. Goodbye police brutality. Human rights abuses? Perfect, realtime, documentation.
Sure there's problems, but if airplanes get blackboxes, humans surely deserve something similar.
Propose this in congress, and watch which agencies get themselves bent out of shape. Ask yourself what they have to lose from such a device.
3. The Access back-end.
As I said, nobody buys Access because it's a great database.
Yeah, and they'll never improve that back end because it drives sales of SQL server. Let me make this perfectly clear: making Access a better product would cannibalize sales of SQL Server, so MS will never make it good
Making good products is at odds with market segmentation. This is one of the fundamental benefits of free software- there is no market segmentation for code so the perfect never becomes the enemy of the good, as we see in the Access situation.
Yeah, that's us.
We're the ones who want anyone to be able to either make a derivative work, or to preserve the canonical one as necessary.
Screw you.
I gave them my money even though I don't have a machine I can run their games on- at the time my fastest machine was 200 mhz, and that thing was *not* running diablo II under wine, trust me.
I gave them money because they made a promise to release the source code when they had enough people give them their money. I gave them my money because I supported their stated goals.
They seem to have wavered in their resolve to do so. I will be writing them to ask for a refund.
Legal != right. They got my money by misleading me, whether technically illegal or not it still bites.
It's suddenly become fashionable to bash Stallman on Slashdot. How odd.
Anyway, your point is wrong-headed. Think about what gets said when people discuss GPL'd game software- people say "GPL is important for infrastructure, not for entertainment". They say when it counts open standards are important but when it's trivial it's ok to be closed.
Well, this is a serious infrastructure issue and Stallman has every right to be upset about it.
Your twist of the word freedom is easily parried- the freedom to take away others' freedom is not a freedom at all. The GPL position is internally consistent.
And finally, your attack, like so many here today, is premised on an ad hominem argument- you're attacking Stallman, not his argument.
This is the kind of stuff I love reading on slashdot- informative little tips that make me all googly-eyed over free software.
That is the coolest shortcut since tabbed browsing.
I was kind of hoping that the pop-under concept would languish forever in the public domain. Now that the intellectual property system is involved, we're in for an era of non-stop popundervation! Now we have to wait 17 years until there's no profit in pop-under ads again. Phooey.
The two views you describe are 100% compatible both with each other and with a conservative outlook on economics. The first (Rawls) is a description of the degree to which we ought to tolerate property. The second (I'd say you lifted it from Locke, but you don't specify) merely identifies a way to distribute property once we're convinced we should have it, i.e., according to who labored for it.
But of course that theory has a couple problems- it takes away the right to inheritance which I'm sure you'll support, and it ignores the fact that once the intellectual product has been created, all the labor is done. Now comes the part where you control what other people do with your "property", even if you've already sold it to them. Stallman's approach ties ownership rights more tightly to the labor that's actually done.
I could go on but I"ll be late for work. I have to go labor for my fair share of the pie so I can take advantage of my right to property as a wage-slave. Thanks for your religious devotion to the economic status quo, buddy.
Stallman is on the right wing of the techno-political world. He wants to eliminate all governmental interference in the creation and use of code, and that starts with eliminating government sponsored monopolies over ideas, otherwise known as the "intellectual property" system. Isn't "That government is best that governs least" a conservative rallying cry?
I think the reason you think he's on the left is because he looks like a hippy and he doesn't support government subsidies for the corporate masters of programmers.
And how can you say the author of emacs has no practical value?