Use a license like the SCSL for instance, let the people you sell to have the code to play with, work with their developers and incorporate their bug-fixes into your next release. Smells like free labor to me. It also has a certain Microsoft slyness to it. By releasing the source under a slightly restricive license, you can control your S/W a little tighter (e.g. making sure that no work-alikes happen to "lift" some of your code for their project.) Remember the Kerboros EULA thing MS did? Dirty as all hell, but smart too. By opening up halfway, they poisoned the waters so to speak of anyone working on REing it, and almost putting the complete burden of proof on anyone they happen to accuse of not having a very clean room (the/. distrobution of said document only helped them BTW).
Anyway, just a few things to think about. Open source is not neccesarily free. It really doesn't need to be either, depending on what you're trying to accomplish.
AFAIK, IANAL and any other acronymss you care to throw in...That specific warning is found primarily on aerosol cans or materials that contain harmful materials, to you or the environment. It's there to prevent people from doing really stupid things like spraying their rust-oleum into a paper bag and sticking over their head until they see pretty colors, or using their freon recharger to bust the lock on their neighbor's garden shed, and chewing a bigger hole in the ozone layer.
Yep. The fact that they can verify your info is just icing on the cake. I set up an account on my home box specifically for an event like this, or in case hey started sending me spam. No problems, I fill it out with a fake name and my real address (note to self, put fake name in mailbox so I can receive the cert..) and then delete that user after I receive it. No harm no foul. Pick up a new cuecat when I spend my $10 at the shack.
I think it's a win/win situation for the artists with her action. If they cut her a share they had better be prepared to cut a share for the rest of the artists on the 4,700-10,000 albums that were "pirated" as well. If they don't, well then, all that igneous polenta about "protecting the artists" is just that, hot grits.
You're the second person I've seen point this out here. I'll give you this much credit; at least you didn't link to the copy that said "Reprinted totally without permission" like the last person said. As for lifting the ideas from Steve Albini...I don't think he is going to bitch too much, the fact is that when he wrote it nobody outside a few indie musicians really paid too much attention to it. Whether you like Courtney or not (personally I don't care that much for her music either) it really doesn't do too much good to spear her for a little freindly copying, she doesn't seem too bothered by that concept anyway. Besides, the message is still true no matter who says it, and needs to be gotten to as many people as possible.
It would be the same as paraphrasing the article on flyers and hand it out at a college campus (perhaps something to try for all the armchair activists out there). Separating the screwing of the artists by the Industry and the screwing the Industry is getting at the hands of certain online artists, there really is no reason to condemn anyone who brings this message to the people, regardless of your personal feelings for them.
Unless he stops using the GPL, there is no way AFAIK to slip in an anti-SUN clause. The best he could do is modify the GPL to close the loophole, which he says is intended to only cover apps and not drivers to explicitly state this, and hope it is still compatible with the GPL.
Of course it is still a rotten thing for SUN to do, it reminds me of the Napster attitude "We think we have a loophole so nyaa nyaa!".
JEDEC didn't make these companies sign an agreement, any sort of anti-NDA? Perhaps if nothing else good comes of this the standards bodies may put some mechanism in place to enforce fair-play, with some sort of legal recourse in the even history gets repeated.
either set up your/etc/hosts or hosts.sam(I think that's the windows file???) to point sunsite.unc.edu to 152.2.210.81, as well as metalab.unc.edu. That should fix any links you encounter on older web pages, as well that sentimental feeling we all get typing up the old address.
That's the best part. The guy in the S/W library looked at me like I had grown a second head. After all, how could a legitimate corporation trust a burned CD with a license printed on an inkjet? I gave up after that. This same company also forbade any open source S/W on office machines a few years back on the grounds that with the source available it would be too easy to sneak modified binaries in and get sensitive company data. (Nevermind that half the manager's machines' hard drives are shared, I'm using non standard ports to access telnet when they block that every other week, everyone has the passwords to the "good" proxy that allows streaming and ftp...)
The trick is to talk to the right person. It's truly amazing how many people in corproations make mistakes like this every day because despite the press, the concept of OSS or Free S/W(GPL) is totally alien to them.
My corporation has a S/W libary, I'm not sure exactly how legal this whole concept is, they have a lot of MS and Novell S/W in it to loan out, as well as all the apps we support (It's a tech support sweatshop, we outsource for other corps.). Anyway, I asked them what Linux S/W they had and the guy said they hadn't gotten around to ordering it. I told him I'd happily bring in some of the ISO burns that I had of previous versions, as well as some of the BSD Unixes, and he got white as a ghost. Apparently "Burn" and "CD" in the same sentence sends them into fits, and after several tries at explaining why it's ok to copy and redistribute open source, he still didn't get it, and wanted nothing to do with it unless he had a license agreement to send to the home office.
This is probably some of the same, one person or a department who have never had it explained to them like a 6 year old that you're *supposed* to pass the code around, and in the case of the GPL, required to do so if you release new binaries. Just be polite and don't flood their inbox, RMS will probably be on the horn to the right person and everything will be copacetic again.
Vorbis is also superior, providing better quality at similar sizes. I don't know if it's implemented yet, but they're planning on imbedding lyrics and other things into the files as well (no more relying on lyrics.ch).
There are also plugins available for most mp3 players to use it, so you may want to give it a try. After all, it's completely unencumbered by patents, and it doesn't look like big business will try to get ahold of it just, so you can still feel like a rebel.
I'm betting if you do that they will get some sort of warrant or whatnot to open the file (I mean if someone says there is something illegal inside of course they could get permission through the proper legal channels to break it.) Of course then the real fun begins as we flood the Internet with similarly named/advertised files, and tie up their lawyers and coders in paperwork for decades.
I wonder what the reaction would be if instead of actually writing a player/decoder/device to bypass an encryption scheme (which is what this streambox player thing sounds like*) someone released a complete description of the the reaplayer protocol. By that I mean something that could not by itself be compiled, ran or used by a non technical person in any way.
I imagine RealShmucks would be completely pissed off but unable to do anything due to that pesky first amendment (at least in the US), and it would serve as a roadmap to any developer who wanted to take the next logical step. Not only that, but if done correctly and written up nice the author could still take credit and not have to worry about helmeted thugs breaking down his door.
(*hey anyone got a working link to a working copy of this S/W?)
Also go to openlaw.org. They are challenging the Sonny Bono act right now, have sent in amicus briefs to the court, and seem like all around nice guys.
BTW, thanks to the BSD developers who made this a non issue on Free+Open. When you say that most of the issues have already been committed do you mean that this particular issue has already been looked at and addressed on those OS's, or is this something that just happened to not be there to exploit on those systems?
If this has been addressed, is there any method/website/mailing-list the various Unix system programmers have to communicate these findings to each other? The article mentions that they were trying to coordinate an announcement but that some of the distro makers spilled the beans early, causing a potential problem for others?
I figured I'd ask you since your title suggests you'd have answers:)
Slashdot Mirror
/ducks flames
/. distrobution of said document only helped them BTW).
Use a license like the SCSL for instance, let the people you sell to have the code to play with, work with their developers and incorporate their bug-fixes into your next release. Smells like free labor to me. It also has a certain Microsoft slyness to it. By releasing the source under a slightly restricive license, you can control your S/W a little tighter (e.g. making sure that no work-alikes happen to "lift" some of your code for their project.) Remember the Kerboros EULA thing MS did? Dirty as all hell, but smart too. By opening up halfway, they poisoned the waters so to speak of anyone working on REing it, and almost putting the complete burden of proof on anyone they happen to accuse of not having a very clean room (the
Anyway, just a few things to think about. Open source is not neccesarily free. It really doesn't need to be either, depending on what you're trying to accomplish.
AFAIK, IANAL and any other acronymss you care to throw in...That specific warning is found primarily on aerosol cans or materials that contain harmful materials, to you or the environment. It's there to prevent people from doing really stupid things like spraying their rust-oleum into a paper bag and sticking over their head until they see pretty colors, or using their freon recharger to bust the lock on their neighbor's garden shed, and chewing a bigger hole in the ozone layer.
Yep. The fact that they can verify your info is just icing on the cake. I set up an account on my home box specifically for an event like this, or in case hey started sending me spam. No problems, I fill it out with a fake name and my real address (note to self, put fake name in mailbox so I can receive the cert..) and then delete that user after I receive it. No harm no foul. Pick up a new cuecat when I spend my $10 at the shack.
I think it's a win/win situation for the artists with her action. If they cut her a share they had better be prepared to cut a share for the rest of the artists on the 4,700-10,000 albums that were "pirated" as well. If they don't, well then, all that igneous polenta about "protecting the artists" is just that, hot grits.
You're the second person I've seen point this out here. I'll give you this much credit; at least you didn't link to the copy that said "Reprinted totally without permission" like the last person said. As for lifting the ideas from Steve Albini...I don't think he is going to bitch too much, the fact is that when he wrote it nobody outside a few indie musicians really paid too much attention to it. Whether you like Courtney or not (personally I don't care that much for her music either) it really doesn't do too much good to spear her for a little freindly copying, she doesn't seem too bothered by that concept anyway. Besides, the message is still true no matter who says it, and needs to be gotten to as many people as possible.
It would be the same as paraphrasing the article on flyers and hand it out at a college campus (perhaps something to try for all the armchair activists out there). Separating the screwing of the artists by the Industry and the screwing the Industry is getting at the hands of certain online artists, there really is no reason to condemn anyone who brings this message to the people, regardless of your personal feelings for them.
Unless he stops using the GPL, there is no way AFAIK to slip in an anti-SUN clause. The best he could do is modify the GPL to close the loophole, which he says is intended to only cover apps and not drivers to explicitly state this, and hope it is still compatible with the GPL.
Of course it is still a rotten thing for SUN to do, it reminds me of the Napster attitude "We think we have a loophole so nyaa nyaa!".
Is the sound of corporations around the world downloading and hoarding as much GPL source as is available under the current license.
Ouch. Perhaps at least the next version of the GPL will be compatible with the current one?
JEDEC didn't make these companies sign an agreement, any sort of anti-NDA? Perhaps if nothing else good comes of this the standards bodies may put some mechanism in place to enforce fair-play, with some sort of legal recourse in the even history gets repeated.
either set up your /etc/hosts or hosts.sam(I think that's the windows file???) to point sunsite.unc.edu to 152.2.210.81, as well as metalab.unc.edu. That should fix any links you encounter on older web pages, as well that sentimental feeling we all get typing up the old address.
That's the best part. The guy in the S/W library looked at me like I had grown a second head. After all, how could a legitimate corporation trust a burned CD with a license printed on an inkjet? I gave up after that. This same company also forbade any open source S/W on office machines a few years back on the grounds that with the source available it would be too easy to sneak modified binaries in and get sensitive company data. (Nevermind that half the manager's machines' hard drives are shared, I'm using non standard ports to access telnet when they block that every other week, everyone has the passwords to the "good" proxy that allows streaming and ftp...)
The trick is to talk to the right person. It's truly amazing how many people in corproations make mistakes like this every day because despite the press, the concept of OSS or Free S/W(GPL) is totally alien to them.
My corporation has a S/W libary, I'm not sure exactly how legal this whole concept is, they have a lot of MS and Novell S/W in it to loan out, as well as all the apps we support (It's a tech support sweatshop, we outsource for other corps.). Anyway, I asked them what Linux S/W they had and the guy said they hadn't gotten around to ordering it. I told him I'd happily bring in some of the ISO burns that I had of previous versions, as well as some of the BSD Unixes, and he got white as a ghost. Apparently "Burn" and "CD" in the same sentence sends them into fits, and after several tries at explaining why it's ok to copy and redistribute open source, he still didn't get it, and wanted nothing to do with it unless he had a license agreement to send to the home office.
This is probably some of the same, one person or a department who have never had it explained to them like a 6 year old that you're *supposed* to pass the code around, and in the case of the GPL, required to do so if you release new binaries. Just be polite and don't flood their inbox, RMS will probably be on the horn to the right person and everything will be copacetic again.
Vorbis is also superior, providing better quality at similar sizes. I don't know if it's implemented yet, but they're planning on imbedding lyrics and other things into the files as well (no more relying on lyrics.ch).
There are also plugins available for most mp3 players to use it, so you may want to give it a try. After all, it's completely unencumbered by patents, and it doesn't look like big business will try to get ahold of it just, so you can still feel like a rebel.
I'm betting if you do that they will get some sort of warrant or whatnot to open the file (I mean if someone says there is something illegal inside of course they could get permission through the proper legal channels to break it.) Of course then the real fun begins as we flood the Internet with similarly named/advertised files, and tie up their lawyers and coders in paperwork for decades.
I wonder what the reaction would be if instead of actually writing a player/decoder/device to bypass an encryption scheme (which is what this streambox player thing sounds like*) someone released a complete description of the the reaplayer protocol. By that I mean something that could not by itself be compiled, ran or used by a non technical person in any way.
I imagine RealShmucks would be completely pissed off but unable to do anything due to that pesky first amendment (at least in the US), and it would serve as a roadmap to any developer who wanted to take the next logical step. Not only that, but if done correctly and written up nice the author could still take credit and not have to worry about helmeted thugs breaking down his door.
(*hey anyone got a working link to a working copy of this S/W?)
Also go to openlaw.org. They are challenging the Sonny Bono act right now, have sent in amicus briefs to the court, and seem like all around nice guys.
BTW, thanks to the BSD developers who made this a non issue on Free+Open. When you say that most of the issues have already been committed do you mean that this particular issue has already been looked at and addressed on those OS's, or is this something that just happened to not be there to exploit on those systems?
:)
If this has been addressed, is there any method/website/mailing-list the various Unix system programmers have to communicate these findings to each other? The article mentions that they were trying to coordinate an announcement but that some of the distro makers spilled the beans early, causing a potential problem for others?
I figured I'd ask you since your title suggests you'd have answers