What we need is a global online Human Right Internet Court and blockchained policy voting with crowd funding replacing taxes. Micro government for all, and distributed and redundant too! =} Ââ^Ââ
If someone could develop and release an Open Source / Free Software Java Object Database that can house live java objects and provide searching and modification on these objects. Zope built atop Python provides just this for Python users and is used to good sucess on many web sites (Zope provides through the web editing of Python/Zope objects and has a very nice search interface for finding that object you require). Everything in Zope is a Python object and is stored in a fast, low resource object datbase - this includes all your web site and the methods to run on them. Its great, free and fast and is available from www.zope.org.
A question isn't really relevent here, a single GPL bootloader (no doubt a patched lilo:) will be all that is necessary to disable and circumvent (or in the tone of this 'announcement', "authorise" any software and thus the linux kernel and user space stuff. A similar panic reaction; over hype fuss was made over the serial numbers in pentium chips.
> PS: I did use linux for four years on the desktop and have given up hope in that arena
I assume this loss of hope to be recent so in this four years you've seen the KDE and GNOME projects grow to 2nd and 3rd generation, you've seen Free/Open software like Galeon, Konqueror, Nautilus, Evolution, GnomoVision;), yada yada be released, grow through regular release, reach stability and become part of your adopted toolkit such that each month (or day for the Debian users) you update your machine and find the same apps filled with even more tweaks and features, stable enough for daily use and with no slowing in sight.
You watch StarOffice be GPLd and head toward being a Free Word and Excel compatible option for everyone. In part due to this, you've seen the ever growing interest in the corporate linux desktop and now, with the growth rate of Linux on a marked increase in yet another IT arena(*), you've given up.
(*) - aside LAN servers, web servers, clusters, embedded devices and development workstations.
Did you just keep a 1996 Slackware installation on your 120Mb parition for 4 years or what?
that the market demographic for those likely to buy it are those likely to know relatively little about media law and fair use rights.
that such fans generally only only use computers for email (hotmail/yahoo) and the web (nsync.com)
that some small group of those listen to their CD on their computer at the same time
finally that the above are roughly valid
Well then, if Sony's losses from those who don't buy the CDs is less than they assume their losses to be through casual digital copying, this stuff will stay on all CDs and be used on all CDs.
It will also fuel a very biased set of figures providing statistical 'proof' that "people don't mind this kind of protection, only pirates do".
A few points to your questions for the sake of completeness.
I'm not really a games player but Wine is solving that problem. It ran Windows Half Life when I last tried it (about a year ago). I'd wager it will run most of the above. If not and you know Windows, why not get involved - its the nearest you'll get to hacking windows code under the currently license terms MS offers.
The package systems solve dependecies well enough. In 6 months most dists with use an APT-like layer making this problem redundant. Debian already does.
Its much better than downloading 6mb VB apps just because the author had to bundle umpteen ocx files you already have.
What is root? What is a user? How about Why did my Outlook just send 30 emails to other people without my asking. What is Lovebug? What is.vbs? Why does my screen go blue? Why do I have to hold my breath when using my scanner in case it has anything to with that blue screen appearing.
Why do I want to use AOL;) (Seriously, AOL will port when it suits them, and it increasingly does with the tension between them and MS these days).
XFree86 4 lets you do the resolution changing (as long as the driver supports the feature). In time all will. They all seemed to offer the RENDER extension quick enough.
Yes people really use it. More and more in increasing increments. Why else do you think MS are making so much noise about it?
Linux has lots of killer apps, remember you're talking about "most users". They'll be happy enough with Blender, Gimp, gPhoto and BCast2000. In a years time, Koffice, Gnome Office and Star Office 6 will no doubt cause quite a buzz on the corporate desktop. The developer world already has its fair share of killer apps (between gcc, emacs, python and glade I'm happy enough - to much to consider windows again for that purpose).
Where there is a lack, it will be solved in time, that pattern is clear. I think its less about "if" and more about "when".
Take into account that lots of new computer users will see Linux in the future, not Windows (the Chinese for example). The western market is already saturated - which is why MS is trying to charge you repeatedly now, and diverging into a games company.
Well, access to the source code has meant it has caught up and surpassed Microsoft's best benchmark output in a very short period of time. If you can find somewhere it hasn't, by all means, make the noise. You will only fuel to the drive to make it happen there too. Microsoft have learned that much from Mindcraft at least. Do you hear them play that record any more?
> If "Desktops aren't the entire world" why is Linux being actively developed to be forced into the market to people to take windows off the "
"Desktop" market?
Because people are free to persue whatever goal they desire with Linux. Its Free and you can't stop them.
You'll notice it's also pretty actively developed in the embedded, distributed, super computer and server sectors too.
The reason for the continual "Linux on the desktop" drive is becuase more and more people are doing it. Trends; where do you see them stopping?
I can only see them leading to lots of corporate IT managers seeing tidy savings (and larger bonuses) to be made without Windows and Office licenses - especially monthly. These same people are already using Linux in their servers more and more.
"Linux isn't a desktop OS" means nothing tomorrow. It means nothing to many of us already. Its about Apps, as you no doubt know, and 99% of the windows using world will find everything they need on most recent distributions. In fact, there is probably more than they need.
As for those who can't stand Linux, well I dare say their legacy will die along with their OS choices. At least our work can be incorporated into the next best Free OS.
Algorithms are not copyrightable, only the implementation. Also I'm assuming that ECMA has some process to ensure the standards it accepts have had patent waivers assured from the submitters.
But assuming it does happen, so what? We remove the offending aspect and continue. At that point.Net isn't a Microsoft only affair, no more than C++ is. Their extensions there didn't kill open source, they won't here either.
What the heck are you talking about? We are programmers and we want choices. Lots of them. In the end we'll have both and will choose what we like thanks.
From an Open Standard viewpoint,.Net makes a lot more sense than Java. Maybe one day this will change, its just a shame Sun didn't have enough of a clue to do it already. The enemy of your enemy can also be an idiot.
From where I'm looking, Mono may actually be a very good thing. If it works, all the problems with language bindings for every feature you want to use from Python or Perl or whatever disappear. Nice. Sure, we can have that today via CORBA but do we? If Mono is dropped, lets replace it with something that solves the same problems.
Petreley doesn't seem to take into account that open source programmers are programmers. Some extremely good and they have a tendency to open their work to others. Once a (albeit windows reliant) Passport Proxy Service is created that takes an open interface from outside, there is no reliance on the whole system being Windows based and no control granted to MS. They can change their system, but we can change the interface, a much easier task.
In fact, the point of.Net having SOAP as an open rpc layer makes this a 15 minute task. Its no more complex (probably less so) than using remote Windows only ODBC sources over XML-RPC, and in the worst case, there are closed tools that can bridge that gap and optimise it, no doubt there will be in the future for this problem too. Problems create markets. They don't tend to result in good programmers being sacked for something inherantly fixable. The same is already true of bridging ODBC.
And if Microsoft did try to pull something like this, the chances are those in government fully mindful of their history will move in once again. They already are over XP (and there they will probably lose) but such a move as Petreley describes is unlikely to be ignored - it is directly and 100% obviously anti-competitive. Not even Judge I. R. Technophobe could miss that and if his prediction of people being sacked happens, it will only add wieght to the actual, individual damage the move has caused. In fact, I'd be surprised if you didn't have a decent shot with a class action against MS if their actions caused you dismissal.
In the end, I think we're making lots of noise about.Net based on one aspect of it, an aspect that Mono isn't really concerned with anyway. Microsoft's services above and beyond the basic system are their affair. Let makes better, Free ones. "OpenTraveller" has a good ring to it. No one is forced to use Passport.
The benefits of the project are huge and numerous.
- A language independent VM
- fast cross platform applications
- simple use of libraries without SWIG
- a 'super OS' layer that gives you more freedom to change OS. Even away from Windows while retaining the same applications.
The underlying approach of Mono/.Net is good - its what Java should have been in the first place.
Either we extend Java or simulate the CLR system. If we don't do one or the other, in 5 years time a very large segment of our industry will have less reason to consider open source and that is far more worrying.
Its easy to be negative, but what does Petreley suggest instead?
Where exactly is the quality control in those established? Surely the obvious matter that enough eyes checking something will make it a good source. It works for mainstream science and seems to work for Open Source and Free software.
Also, there is nothing stopping you donating some time / money to reach the goal you require. The final product will be a Free encyclopedia that meats your requirement and doesn't cost, by then, unecessary amounts.
Of course, you're free to continue purchasing closed vartiants but I think that now we have the internet, this isn't necessary on 'quality' grounds if approached responsibly. Free Software and Free Music don't appear to lack quality, perhaps they lack support from some people's view (not mine) but that's not really an issue for books.
The same applies for software and music IMO. I already use Free variants of those in ever increasing amounts and have no plans to stop.
Of course, I really care little for the "How will Britanica make money if we make a free variant". Would you like Cars banned just so Blacksmiths can continue to make horse shoes and protect their market?
I hear you. I'm not sure what idea I'm supposed to be getting though.
What does the customer care there is no version 2.0? Why should there even be a 2.0? So the bugs and features not in 1.0 can be recharged for? In what I'm describing they get those in 1.0 or you don't get paid. Simple and fair.
Sure, the money for future work could be given to another group more competitive. That's not a bad thing is it? Would you like having to pay over and over again to the same company just becuase you did last time? I was rather under the impression that is one of the biggest gripes software users have.
"Sweat shop in Africa" is unlikely, this isn't manual labour - at worst we're looking at the details of future work being posted on USENET or one of the open source reverse auction sites (www.cosource.com perhaps). More likely it'll be sent to 10 or so development houses happy to produce an open source / free software work. It may even make you more money than otherwise but the client will have avoided a certainly level of risk in getting open code after the work is complete.
The biggest difference is that you lose the monopoly you have over your customer - you can't hold them to ransom. You may benefit from that now but its unlikely to stay that way in future. Free Software and Open Source has given software users / customers more choice and that means the ball is swinging back into their court (where it should be IMO).
But lets just assume that the kids in Africa all learn Linux in the next 10 years and are as skilled as the rest of the world in that field. Why should we stop them being more competitive than ourselves? Many of you fear not being able to eat becuase your copyright reliant jobs may not exist if Free software reaches a critical mass. These people already can't.
Good luck to them I say, if they get the work, they deserve it. If the only reason you are 'better' is a function of being white and in the west, then thats not a good reason and I say they deserve the contracts.
Without Free Software, those very same kids would be forced to feed you by having to buy western computers and software in order to keep up technologically. And that is just plain sick.
In which case you would be very wise to charge a fair sum for the time it took you to develop it in the first place. Surely you can see that?
You will write the software in the future. How, and under what terms you do it is up for debate.
I find that writing Free software, starting from Free software is very lucrative (I'm on a salary but as a Freelancer, I'd find the same - probably moreso).
Customers are always happy to pay more for getting their solution sooner - extending other Free systems will do that.
Wake up developers. You are not solely reliant on your company to make money. The only reliance is with your customers and they seem to be wanting Free software more and more.
Calm down. Nobody will take your right to impose control over your customer away - too many people make too much money to start down that path!
Besides I agree with you 100%.
It is, from my viewpoint, irrelevent to this discussion. I'm suggesting that you will find fewer and fewer people, in time, willing to suffer your terms and those of your company. It may have to adapt or die. You see, your customers like Free software and it is their dollars you need.
Remeber, we are going to write Free software wether you like it or not. If your customers find Free software that does what you write does, they may choose the Free and you will get no money.
Noone is taking your right to copyright and limit the distribution of your work, instead there are people who want to make Free Music, Free Books and Free Software. There are more who want to use it.
If you look you'll find that the choices amongst the Free is much larger than you think, and much better than you imagined. Some is crap but so is some nonFree. It just doesn't have a marketing machine pushing it into your dreams and taxing you for that when you buy it.
So Copyright away, but you have to realise that your customers are becoming aware of the Free and have nothing to gain in ignoring it.
Copyright on books was granted to protect the investment of printing presses, not because the right of the author to extract money from those reading the work was especially recognised.
I'm not suggestng that copyright be banned. I'm saying that people ought to know that for every Copyrighted song they are forced to pay inflated prices for, there are Free Artists who will happily let them at their work, some in the hope you will pay to see them live.
For every book author who's work is wrapped into the profit of a large publisher, there are many more who be happy just to have you read their output and talk to them about it.
Most would be thrilled to receive a 'tip' and those you passed the book onto.
I simply cannot agree that it it more important that we lock people up for breaking copyright - an authors right to profit, is after all, less important than someone elses right to walk outside when no one is actually hurt except psuedo finacially ("lost earning" are just crap - like the candlemakers could sue the Sun for providing free light).
Slashdot Mirror
...online.
And we need an Internet Human Rights court.
And we need to crowd fund public projects so the people maintain ownership of their works - instead of taxes!
Hurrah!
- Phillip @=}-~
What we need is a global online Human Right Internet Court and blockchained policy voting with crowd funding replacing taxes. Micro government for all, and distributed and redundant too! =} Ââ^Ââ
That's wine...
1 Timothy 5:23
Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.
If someone could develop and release an Open Source / Free Software Java Object Database that can house live java objects and provide searching and modification on these objects. Zope built atop Python provides just this for Python users and is used to good sucess on many web sites (Zope provides through the web editing of Python/Zope objects and has a very nice search interface for finding that object you require). Everything in Zope is a Python object and is stored in a fast, low resource object datbase - this includes all your web site and the methods to run on them. Its great, free and fast and is available from www.zope.org.
www.microsoft.com :)
A question isn't really relevent here, a single GPL bootloader (no doubt a patched lilo :) will be all that is necessary to disable and circumvent (or in the tone of this 'announcement', "authorise" any software and thus the linux kernel and user space stuff. A similar panic reaction; over hype fuss was made over the serial numbers in pentium chips.
Sign-on and IM can hardly be termed "Copyright protection mechanisms" can they?
> PS: I did use linux for four years on the desktop and have given up hope in that arena
;), yada yada be released, grow through regular release, reach stability and become part of your adopted toolkit such that each month (or day for the Debian users) you update your machine and find the same apps filled with even more tweaks and features, stable enough for daily use and with no slowing in sight.
I assume this loss of hope to be recent so in this four years you've seen the KDE and GNOME projects grow to 2nd and 3rd generation, you've seen Free/Open software like Galeon, Konqueror, Nautilus, Evolution, GnomoVision
You watch StarOffice be GPLd and head toward being a Free Word and Excel compatible option for everyone. In part due to this, you've seen the ever growing interest in the corporate linux desktop and now, with the growth rate of Linux on a marked increase in yet another IT arena(*), you've given up.
(*) - aside LAN servers, web servers, clusters, embedded devices and development workstations.
Did you just keep a 1996 Slackware installation on your 120Mb parition for 4 years or what?
You sound like you know one or two things but calling "XNest" seldom used in the manner you do doesn't inspire confidence.
Xnest is great, its perhaps one of the best things about X. If you don't know why, you don't know X.
I'm not sure GNOME needs a new ORB at its heart. Orbit is easily sleek enough for general desktop use.
How more simple can you get than a 3 line python random.org CORBA client?
- this kind of music is Sony's biggest seller
- that the market demographic for those likely to buy it are those likely to know relatively little about media law and fair use rights.
- that such fans generally only only use computers for email (hotmail/yahoo) and the web (nsync.com)
- that some small group of those listen to their CD on their computer at the same time
- finally that the above are roughly valid
Well then, if Sony's losses from those who don't buy the CDs is less than they assume their losses to be through casual digital copying, this stuff will stay on all CDs and be used on all CDs.It will also fuel a very biased set of figures providing statistical 'proof' that "people don't mind this kind of protection, only pirates do".
Have your younger sisters write to Sony now.
A few points to your questions for the sake of completeness.
.vbs? Why does my screen go blue? Why do I have to hold my breath when using my scanner in case it has anything to with that blue screen appearing.
;) (Seriously, AOL will port when it suits them, and it increasingly does with the tension between them and MS these days).
I'm not really a games player but Wine is solving that problem. It ran Windows Half Life when I last tried it (about a year ago). I'd wager it will run most of the above. If not and you know Windows, why not get involved - its the nearest you'll get to hacking windows code under the currently license terms MS offers.
The package systems solve dependecies well enough. In 6 months most dists with use an APT-like layer making this problem redundant. Debian already does.
Its much better than downloading 6mb VB apps just because the author had to bundle umpteen ocx files you already have.
What is root? What is a user? How about Why did my Outlook just send 30 emails to other people without my asking. What is Lovebug? What is
Why do I want to use AOL
XFree86 4 lets you do the resolution changing (as long as the driver supports the feature). In time all will. They all seemed to offer the RENDER extension quick enough.
Yes people really use it. More and more in increasing increments. Why else do you think MS are making so much noise about it?
Linux has lots of killer apps, remember you're talking about "most users". They'll be happy enough with Blender, Gimp, gPhoto and BCast2000. In a years time, Koffice, Gnome Office and Star Office 6 will no doubt cause quite a buzz on the corporate desktop. The developer world already has its fair share of killer apps (between gcc, emacs, python and glade I'm happy enough - to much to consider windows again for that purpose).
Where there is a lack, it will be solved in time, that pattern is clear. I think its less about "if" and more about "when".
Take into account that lots of new computer users will see Linux in the future, not Windows (the Chinese for example). The western market is already saturated - which is why MS is trying to charge you repeatedly now, and diverging into a games company.
Well, access to the source code has meant it has caught up and surpassed Microsoft's best benchmark output in a very short period of time. If you can find somewhere it hasn't, by all means, make the noise. You will only fuel to the drive to make it happen there too. Microsoft have learned that much from Mindcraft at least. Do you hear them play that record any more?
They're _trying_ to play ours now.
> If "Desktops aren't the entire world" why is Linux being actively developed to be forced into the market to people to take windows off the "
"Desktop" market?
Because people are free to persue whatever goal they desire with Linux. Its Free and you can't stop them.
You'll notice it's also pretty actively developed in the embedded, distributed, super computer and server sectors too.
The reason for the continual "Linux on the desktop" drive is becuase more and more people are doing it. Trends; where do you see them stopping?
I can only see them leading to lots of corporate IT managers seeing tidy savings (and larger bonuses) to be made without Windows and Office licenses - especially monthly. These same people are already using Linux in their servers more and more.
"Linux isn't a desktop OS" means nothing tomorrow. It means nothing to many of us already. Its about Apps, as you no doubt know, and 99% of the windows using world will find everything they need on most recent distributions. In fact, there is probably more than they need.
As for those who can't stand Linux, well I dare say their legacy will die along with their OS choices. At least our work can be incorporated into the next best Free OS.
Algorithms are not copyrightable, only the implementation. Also I'm assuming that ECMA has some process to ensure the standards it accepts have had patent waivers assured from the submitters.
.Net isn't a Microsoft only affair, no more than C++ is. Their extensions there didn't kill open source, they won't here either.
But assuming it does happen, so what? We remove the offending aspect and continue. At that point
"anyone OpenSource"?
.Net makes a lot more sense than Java. Maybe one day this will change, its just a shame Sun didn't have enough of a clue to do it already. The enemy of your enemy can also be an idiot.
What the heck are you talking about? We are programmers and we want choices. Lots of them. In the end we'll have both and will choose what we like thanks.
From an Open Standard viewpoint,
From where I'm looking, Mono may actually be a very good thing. If it works, all the problems with language bindings for every feature you want to use from Python or Perl or whatever disappear. Nice. Sure, we can have that today via CORBA but do we? If Mono is dropped, lets replace it with something that solves the same problems.
.Net having SOAP as an open rpc layer makes this a 15 minute task. Its no more complex (probably less so) than using remote Windows only ODBC sources over XML-RPC, and in the worst case, there are closed tools that can bridge that gap and optimise it, no doubt there will be in the future for this problem too. Problems create markets. They don't tend to result in good programmers being sacked for something inherantly fixable. The same is already true of bridging ODBC.
.Net based on one aspect of it, an aspect that Mono isn't really concerned with anyway. Microsoft's services above and beyond the basic system are their affair. Let makes better, Free ones. "OpenTraveller" has a good ring to it. No one is forced to use Passport.
Petreley doesn't seem to take into account that open source programmers are programmers. Some extremely good and they have a tendency to open their work to others. Once a (albeit windows reliant) Passport Proxy Service is created that takes an open interface from outside, there is no reliance on the whole system being Windows based and no control granted to MS. They can change their system, but we can change the interface, a much easier task.
In fact, the point of
And if Microsoft did try to pull something like this, the chances are those in government fully mindful of their history will move in once again. They already are over XP (and there they will probably lose) but such a move as Petreley describes is unlikely to be ignored - it is directly and 100% obviously anti-competitive. Not even Judge I. R. Technophobe could miss that and if his prediction of people being sacked happens, it will only add wieght to the actual, individual damage the move has caused. In fact, I'd be surprised if you didn't have a decent shot with a class action against MS if their actions caused you dismissal.
In the end, I think we're making lots of noise about
The benefits of the project are huge and numerous.
- A language independent VM
- fast cross platform applications
- simple use of libraries without SWIG
- a 'super OS' layer that gives you more freedom to change OS. Even away from Windows while retaining the same applications.
The underlying approach of Mono/.Net is good - its what Java should have been in the first place.
Either we extend Java or simulate the CLR system. If we don't do one or the other, in 5 years time a very large segment of our industry will have less reason to consider open source and that is far more worrying.
Its easy to be negative, but what does Petreley suggest instead?
That is as pedantic as it gets. =}
And Apache isn't the most popular web server. And Linux isn't growing faster than anything else.
You only see what is around you. Look futher.
And also not that those "kids" will one day have your job and be much better at it. Trends. Its all about trends. Where do you see them stopping?
Can we have a spell checker in Slashdot ;)
"meats". I can't believe I did that.
Where exactly is the quality control in those established? Surely the obvious matter that enough eyes checking something will make it a good source. It works for mainstream science and seems to work for Open Source and Free software.
Also, there is nothing stopping you donating some time / money to reach the goal you require. The final product will be a Free encyclopedia that meats your requirement and doesn't cost, by then, unecessary amounts.
Of course, you're free to continue purchasing closed vartiants but I think that now we have the internet, this isn't necessary on 'quality' grounds if approached responsibly. Free Software and Free Music don't appear to lack quality, perhaps they lack support from some people's view (not mine) but that's not really an issue for books.
The same applies for software and music IMO. I already use Free variants of those in ever increasing amounts and have no plans to stop.
Of course, I really care little for the "How will Britanica make money if we make a free variant". Would you like Cars banned just so Blacksmiths can continue to make horse shoes and protect their market?
I hear you. I'm not sure what idea I'm supposed to be getting though.
What does the customer care there is no version 2.0? Why should there even be a 2.0? So the bugs and features not in 1.0 can be recharged for? In what I'm describing they get those in 1.0 or you don't get paid. Simple and fair.
Sure, the money for future work could be given to another group more competitive. That's not a bad thing is it? Would you like having to pay over and over again to the same company just becuase you did last time? I was rather under the impression that is one of the biggest gripes software users have.
"Sweat shop in Africa" is unlikely, this isn't manual labour - at worst we're looking at the details of future work being posted on USENET or one of the open source reverse auction sites (www.cosource.com perhaps). More likely it'll be sent to 10 or so development houses happy to produce an open source / free software work. It may even make you more money than otherwise but the client will have avoided a certainly level of risk in getting open code after the work is complete.
The biggest difference is that you lose the monopoly you have over your customer - you can't hold them to ransom. You may benefit from that now but its unlikely to stay that way in future. Free Software and Open Source has given software users / customers more choice and that means the ball is swinging back into their court (where it should be IMO).
But lets just assume that the kids in Africa all learn Linux in the next 10 years and are as skilled as the rest of the world in that field. Why should we stop them being more competitive than ourselves? Many of you fear not being able to eat becuase your copyright reliant jobs may not exist if Free software reaches a critical mass. These people already can't.
Good luck to them I say, if they get the work, they deserve it. If the only reason you are 'better' is a function of being white and in the west, then thats not a good reason and I say they deserve the contracts.
Without Free Software, those very same kids would be forced to feed you by having to buy western computers and software in order to keep up technologically. And that is just plain sick.
I'm sure you get the idea.
In which case you would be very wise to charge a fair sum for the time it took you to develop it in the first place. Surely you can see that?
You will write the software in the future. How, and under what terms you do it is up for debate.
I find that writing Free software, starting from Free software is very lucrative (I'm on a salary but as a Freelancer, I'd find the same - probably moreso).
Customers are always happy to pay more for getting their solution sooner - extending other Free systems will do that.
Wake up developers. You are not solely reliant on your company to make money. The only reliance is with your customers and they seem to be wanting Free software more and more.
Calm down. Nobody will take your right to impose control over your customer away - too many people make too much money to start down that path!
Besides I agree with you 100%.
It is, from my viewpoint, irrelevent to this discussion. I'm suggesting that you will find fewer and fewer people, in time, willing to suffer your terms and those of your company. It may have to adapt or die. You see, your customers like Free software and it is their dollars you need.
Remeber, we are going to write Free software wether you like it or not. If your customers find Free software that does what you write does, they may choose the Free and you will get no money.
Noone is taking your right to copyright and limit the distribution of your work, instead there are people who want to make Free Music, Free Books and Free Software. There are more who want to use it.
If you look you'll find that the choices amongst the Free is much larger than you think, and much better than you imagined. Some is crap but so is some nonFree. It just doesn't have a marketing machine pushing it into your dreams and taxing you for that when you buy it.
So Copyright away, but you have to realise that your customers are becoming aware of the Free and have nothing to gain in ignoring it.
Copyright on books was granted to protect the investment of printing presses, not because the right of the author to extract money from those reading the work was especially recognised.
I'm not suggestng that copyright be banned. I'm saying that people ought to know that for every Copyrighted song they are forced to pay inflated prices for, there are Free Artists who will happily let them at their work, some in the hope you will pay to see them live.
For every book author who's work is wrapped into the profit of a large publisher, there are many more who be happy just to have you read their output and talk to them about it.
Most would be thrilled to receive a 'tip' and those you passed the book onto.
I simply cannot agree that it it more important that we lock people up for breaking copyright - an authors right to profit, is after all, less important than someone elses right to walk outside when no one is actually hurt except psuedo finacially ("lost earning" are just crap - like the candlemakers could sue the Sun for providing free light).