Its obviously a stupid idea to create another license just so contributors can keep their modifications. They already can do that! And it doesn't matter that India has 250,000 students (of which how many are writing any open source code that matters?), because if the students understand open source, and if the teachers do, they can still and probably will still release their software under GPL or BSD.
Thats the beautiful thing about open source, just as the community must maintain code for the code to thrive, the community must maintain the license as well. So just because some blowhard gets it in their head that no existing license could address their specific problem, and thus they need to create a new one, the community doesn't have to use their license. Thats even if OSI decides to certify it.
This is why I love open source so much. The community will solve this issue, it will weed these losers out. No congressional act needed, no changing of the rules, it didn't even take me wasting 15 minutes of work time to type it up. This is how it should be done.
Matter of fact, the more I think about this story, the less it matters. I'm going back to work.
I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread yet which is really surpising when you think how cool this project is..
But Cornell U's Credence project completely circumvents the problems that this company may introduce to P2P.. And it depends on people, not computers, so you may be able to fool a computer, but not a person.
But if the community around the Sistine Chapel decides that it needs a new coat of paint, they can pool their money and hire a painter.
Not everybody can do everything. But everybody can do something. If all you can do is put in $5 for the cause, then do it. If all you can do is go beg five other people to put $5 in for the cause, then do it. Everybody can do something.
The open source community does not owe anybody anything. If you want something, open source allows you to have it. But it absolutely DOES NOT give you the right to have it given to you.
If you want it, write it, if you won't write it, STFU
That is the open source way. The way it works is simple. If enough people want something done, they have the freedom to do it. If you can't reach that critical mass of people interested in exercising that freedom to DO SOMETHING to get it done, then it must not be worth doing.
Look at it this way.
1. The code is open. Anybody can do whatever they want with it. 2. There are programmers out there with way more skills than money. Somebody out there can use a job or a project to work on. 3. If there are enough people who really want to see something done in a project, they can pool their money and pay somebody to do it.
And if you can't get enough people together to pay SOMEBODY in this whole world to do it, it must not be worth doing.
Open source is about community. The community is the key in every aspect of it. Creating it, using it, improving it, supporting it, all of it. Open source is also a meritocracy. Nobody owes you, and nobody owes the community, anything.
So yeah, she's entitled to an opinion, but if she's not willing to DO something about it, other than be mad that someone else won't do something about it, then she should STFU.
You're probably right, they probably wouldn't open soup kitchens.
But they could if they wanted to.
Its another option, its something to do with that money, and thats the point. Not to mention all the other societal benefits that come with using Open Source.
If a private company had to bid for the operating contract, and that contract was up for review and/or renewal every so often, they would have a greater incentive to do better than someone else. Much greater than the government which has no one else that it has to do better than.
Either way someone is going to get a yacht. I know you must see that. Government doesn't do anything better than the private sector, except spend money. But the private sector has an incentive to do better because they have a profit motive, and competition from other folks who also have a profit motive. If given up to the free market (a free-er market anyway), if one company is not satisfying their customer (the government, the people) then someone else will.
Of course you need to put in checks that keep the company from colluding with the government to keep the contract even when they aren't fulfilling it, but thats another shortcoming of government, another reason why they should not be in charge.
Are you serious? And exactly how is it a problem that anyone can register a domain name?!
And why is a mistyped domain name any less legitimate than a correctly typed one.. who's to say which is mistyped and which is correct even? If they both played by the rules, and didn't force anybody to come to the site, why are one or the other at fault?
And what does either of those issues have to do with this story?
AOL signed an agreement in May 2003 to use Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft pretty much across the board. They had Mozilla/Netscape all this time, and the hope has always been that they would use the Gecko engine as their main browser. But they didn't. And they won't. So yeah, it will be a cool thing, a GREAT thing, but I doubt it will happen. They already had their chance, and passed it up.
I think it is exactly that there are great public airwaves that they want to show something great on, and that advertising allows them to do that. The greater the thing they put on the more money they make from advertising.
And no, there is no moral obligation not to subvert the system. The point is, its a public asset, and we have the right to access it and use our access to it, in the way that we see fit, as long as our usage does not impede someone elses same right. True, if enough of us quit watching commercials, their value will drop, but we are an integral portion of the equation. They should no more be allowed to force us to watch commercials than we should be able to force them not to show them. If one part of the equation changes, the other parts need to change as well in order to continue getting the same result (free access to broadcasts). And they advertisers will change because the viewers (us) are still going to be there, they just have to figure a different way to reach us.
In the spirit of constructive criticism.. some of your arguments are wrong..
...to watch a TV show (which is provided to you free on the assumption that you will watch commercials)...
TV shows that are broadcasted over the air are given to you free because the radio frequencies that carry them are supposed to be a public medium, public assets, and because of that you cannot charge for their access. Commercials are in there in order to give private entities money to broadcast those shows. So the show is free to view because the broadcasting company cannot charge its viewers for access, not because it is assumed you'll watch the commercials. It is assumed someone will watch the commercials, but thats not the reason that you can view the program for free.
Your second premise (watching but ignoring commercials is stealing) is also wrong, because the point that it was based on (see above) is wrong.
I guess that also makes your socks analogy irrelevant as well, because socks are not public assets, while the airways are. You don't have to buy a right of access to them, while you do have to buy a right of access to a pair of socks.
While I do agree with you that corporations shouldn't be doing what they are doing in regards to making us watch commercials, and calling copying music theft, its ineffective to argue a point based on flawed arguments.
Not to be an ass, but you gotta call a spade a spade..
I just moved from Colorado, so I have a bit of an interest in their politics.. I know in Colorado, which until recently was being called a swing state, that in the 1980, 1984 elections that 24% and 28.32% voted for Ronald Reagan..
(see http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/2004 _ELECTIONGUIDE_GRAPHIC/)
I'd say that pretty much indicates a lot of people really liked him..
This election hasn't been anything but emotionally based. People are scared. And the Bush campaign specifically, sees it. Cheney telling people a vote for Kerry means we'll get attacked again, or slip into a pre-9/11 mindstate (like that shouldn't be a goal). The most visible parts of the Republican convention were based on rallying people's emotions. Only Bush can protect us. He's our commander in chief. Its un-american, unpatriotic to challenge him and what he's done (not said at the convention, but it has been said in the past).
All of this masks the fact that HE LIED. He lied about Iraq, and got us into a war that we didn't need to be in, and 1,000+ American soldiers have died; far and away more than any other nation in our coalition. This war is the US's burden and Bush gave it to us.
Bush claims as well that we are safer, the world is safer, with Saddam Hussein gone. So that may be true, but are we safer with an Iraq that is very unstable? Are we safer with a president that lied to us, telling us that Iraq had WMDs, that Iraq had connections to Al-Qaida? Are we safer with Bin Laden still out there? Are we safer because Bin Laden is no longer mentioned by the campaign because that would mean another thing this war on terror hasn't accomplished? Are we safer because $200 Billion has been spent in Iraq, when so much of that could have gone to protecting our homelands? Are we safer with a President who creates Executive Orders allowing Presidents to indefinitely keep their administration papers secret? A DOJ who openly told its agents to resist giving any information to the public in FOIA requests?
Think about it. Thats the truth. And now he's telling people don't be scared, that he can protect us. From what? the sh!t he started? C'mon man.. this whole election is about emotions. You can see mine worked up.. I'm sure there's stuff Kerry has done as well to work on people's emotions, but I'm too biased to write that here. And even if someone else does, it just goes to prove my point that this election is already being based on emotions, and primarily by the Bush campaign.
God, I feel so old.. I remember looking through InCider magazine and seeing that I could get an external 20 MB drive for my IIc for about $400.. Imagine how big my BBS could be with that kind of space! I'd never need another drive!
And now they're putting 1.5 GB drives on phones. What will they think of next..
I thought that at first too, but I think what the poster is actually saying is that Microsoft may not have wanted to be involved with an organization that was so openely supporting Software Freedom Day, something totally antithetical to Microsoft's business model.
I mean really, besides the minor projects they have now, what examples of supporting open source, let alone free software do you know Microsoft to be a part of? I don't think its that big a stretch..
Or did the article not mention any alternatives to Word, while the Slashdot write-up says the article advocated AbiWord and/or OpenOffice as replacements?
C'mon people, I think the fact that we're all on Slashdot already pretty much says which side of the fence we fall on. There's no need to embelish on stories like that. Who are you trying to prove it to?
I'm just wondering what merited putting this story on the front page, when nothing has changed with it in 4 years. To illustrate, see the following chronology of events..
2000 > Katie.com published. 2000 > Penguin and Katie's Lawyer say give us the name. 2000 > The real Katie says no. 2001 > Penguin and Katie's Lawyer say give us the name. 2001 > The real Katie says no. 2002 > Penguin and Katie's Lawyer say give us the name. 2002 > The real Katie says no. 2003 > Penguin and Katie's Lawyer say give us the name. 2003 > The real Katie says no. 2004 > Penguin and Katie's Lawyer say give us the name. 2004 > The real Katie says no.
Penguin and Katie's Lawyer continue using the name Katie.com when they have absolutely no claim to it. Who's dumbass fault is that? If I was the real Katie, I'd put up Google ads, popups, popunders, Gator, and whatever the hell else I could and at least make some money off of the traffic. The point is its her domain. Is now, and was four years ago, and was 8 years ago when she registered it. It is clearly HER DOMAIN. No news here.. move on..
I just have to say how stupid the IANAL acronym is getting. Can we pretty much assume that anybody who is on Slashdot commenting on a legal case is not a lawyer?! Can we get some IAAL up in here?! And if not that, then cut out the damn IANAL.. We know YNAL!
Slashdot Mirror
there is usually some horrible music playing in the background that is difficult (if not impossible) to stop.
Luckily some of those antithetical-myspace-geeks have http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/3299/ saved us from the hell you speak of.
Two words:
Mixmaster remailer.
Its obviously a stupid idea to create another license just so contributors can keep their modifications. They already can do that! And it doesn't matter that India has 250,000 students (of which how many are writing any open source code that matters?), because if the students understand open source, and if the teachers do, they can still and probably will still release their software under GPL or BSD.
Thats the beautiful thing about open source, just as the community must maintain code for the code to thrive, the community must maintain the license as well. So just because some blowhard gets it in their head that no existing license could address their specific problem, and thus they need to create a new one, the community doesn't have to use their license. Thats even if OSI decides to certify it.
This is why I love open source so much. The community will solve this issue, it will weed these losers out. No congressional act needed, no changing of the rules, it didn't even take me wasting 15 minutes of work time to type it up. This is how it should be done.
Matter of fact, the more I think about this story, the less it matters. I'm going back to work.
I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread yet which is really surpising when you think how cool this project is..
e x.html
But Cornell U's Credence project completely circumvents the problems that this company may introduce to P2P.. And it depends on people, not computers, so you may be able to fool a computer, but not a person.
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/People/egs/credence/ind
But if the community around the Sistine Chapel decides that it needs a new coat of paint, they can pool their money and hire a painter.
Not everybody can do everything. But everybody can do something. If all you can do is put in $5 for the cause, then do it. If all you can do is go beg five other people to put $5 in for the cause, then do it. Everybody can do something.
The open source community does not owe anybody anything. If you want something, open source allows you to have it. But it absolutely DOES NOT give you the right to have it given to you.
If you want it, write it, if you won't write it, STFU
That is the open source way. The way it works is simple. If enough people want something done, they have the freedom to do it. If you can't reach that critical mass of people interested in exercising that freedom to DO SOMETHING to get it done, then it must not be worth doing.
Look at it this way.
1. The code is open. Anybody can do whatever they want with it.
2. There are programmers out there with way more skills than money. Somebody out there can use a job or a project to work on.
3. If there are enough people who really want to see something done in a project, they can pool their money and pay somebody to do it.
And if you can't get enough people together to pay SOMEBODY in this whole world to do it, it must not be worth doing.
Open source is about community. The community is the key in every aspect of it. Creating it, using it, improving it, supporting it, all of it. Open source is also a meritocracy. Nobody owes you, and nobody owes the community, anything.
So yeah, she's entitled to an opinion, but if she's not willing to DO something about it, other than be mad that someone else won't do something about it, then she should STFU.
You're probably right, they probably wouldn't open soup kitchens.
But they could if they wanted to.
Its another option, its something to do with that money, and thats the point. Not to mention all the other societal benefits that come with using Open Source.
Hax.
Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not?
I think it would be good for most people to become something which they are not.
If a private company had to bid for the operating contract, and that contract was up for review and/or renewal every so often, they would have a greater incentive to do better than someone else. Much greater than the government which has no one else that it has to do better than.
Either way someone is going to get a yacht. I know you must see that. Government doesn't do anything better than the private sector, except spend money. But the private sector has an incentive to do better because they have a profit motive, and competition from other folks who also have a profit motive. If given up to the free market (a free-er market anyway), if one company is not satisfying their customer (the government, the people) then someone else will.
Of course you need to put in checks that keep the company from colluding with the government to keep the contract even when they aren't fulfilling it, but thats another shortcoming of government, another reason why they should not be in charge.
Hax.
Are you serious? And exactly how is it a problem that anyone can register a domain name?!
And why is a mistyped domain name any less legitimate than a correctly typed one.. who's to say which is mistyped and which is correct even? If they both played by the rules, and didn't force anybody to come to the site, why are one or the other at fault?
And what does either of those issues have to do with this story?
MODERATOR!!
AOL signed an agreement in May 2003 to use Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft pretty much across the board. They had Mozilla/Netscape all this time, and the hope has always been that they would use the Gecko engine as their main browser. But they didn't. And they won't. So yeah, it will be a cool thing, a GREAT thing, but I doubt it will happen. They already had their chance, and passed it up.
Hax.
I think it is exactly that there are great public airwaves that they want to show something great on, and that advertising allows them to do that. The greater the thing they put on the more money they make from advertising.
And no, there is no moral obligation not to subvert the system. The point is, its a public asset, and we have the right to access it and use our access to it, in the way that we see fit, as long as our usage does not impede someone elses same right. True, if enough of us quit watching commercials, their value will drop, but we are an integral portion of the equation. They should no more be allowed to force us to watch commercials than we should be able to force them not to show them. If one part of the equation changes, the other parts need to change as well in order to continue getting the same result (free access to broadcasts). And they advertisers will change because the viewers (us) are still going to be there, they just have to figure a different way to reach us.
Hax.
TV shows that are broadcasted over the air are given to you free because the radio frequencies that carry them are supposed to be a public medium, public assets, and because of that you cannot charge for their access. Commercials are in there in order to give private entities money to broadcast those shows. So the show is free to view because the broadcasting company cannot charge its viewers for access, not because it is assumed you'll watch the commercials. It is assumed someone will watch the commercials, but thats not the reason that you can view the program for free.
Your second premise (watching but ignoring commercials is stealing) is also wrong, because the point that it was based on (see above) is wrong.
I guess that also makes your socks analogy irrelevant as well, because socks are not public assets, while the airways are. You don't have to buy a right of access to them, while you do have to buy a right of access to a pair of socks.
While I do agree with you that corporations shouldn't be doing what they are doing in regards to making us watch commercials, and calling copying music theft, its ineffective to argue a point based on flawed arguments.
Not to be an ass, but you gotta call a spade a spade..
Hax.
I just moved from Colorado, so I have a bit of an interest in their politics.. I know in Colorado, which until recently was being called a swing state, that in the 1980, 1984 elections that 24% and 28.32% voted for Ronald Reagan..
4 _ELECTIONGUIDE_GRAPHIC/)
(see http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/200
I'd say that pretty much indicates a lot of people really liked him..
Hax.
Even if I had mod points, it would be +5 Funny..
If I had mop points, the parent would be +5 Funny..
This election hasn't been anything but emotionally based. People are scared. And the Bush campaign specifically, sees it. Cheney telling people a vote for Kerry means we'll get attacked again, or slip into a pre-9/11 mindstate (like that shouldn't be a goal). The most visible parts of the Republican convention were based on rallying people's emotions. Only Bush can protect us. He's our commander in chief. Its un-american, unpatriotic to challenge him and what he's done (not said at the convention, but it has been said in the past).
All of this masks the fact that HE LIED. He lied about Iraq, and got us into a war that we didn't need to be in, and 1,000+ American soldiers have died; far and away more than any other nation in our coalition. This war is the US's burden and Bush gave it to us.
Bush claims as well that we are safer, the world is safer, with Saddam Hussein gone. So that may be true, but are we safer with an Iraq that is very unstable? Are we safer with a president that lied to us, telling us that Iraq had WMDs, that Iraq had connections to Al-Qaida? Are we safer with Bin Laden still out there? Are we safer because Bin Laden is no longer mentioned by the campaign because that would mean another thing this war on terror hasn't accomplished? Are we safer because $200 Billion has been spent in Iraq, when so much of that could have gone to protecting our homelands? Are we safer with a President who creates Executive Orders allowing Presidents to indefinitely keep their administration papers secret? A DOJ who openly told its agents to resist giving any information to the public in FOIA requests?
Think about it. Thats the truth. And now he's telling people don't be scared, that he can protect us. From what? the sh!t he started? C'mon man.. this whole election is about emotions. You can see mine worked up.. I'm sure there's stuff Kerry has done as well to work on people's emotions, but I'm too biased to write that here. And even if someone else does, it just goes to prove my point that this election is already being based on emotions, and primarily by the Bush campaign.
Hax.
God, I feel so old.. I remember looking through InCider magazine and seeing that I could get an external 20 MB drive for my IIc for about $400.. Imagine how big my BBS could be with that kind of space! I'd never need another drive!
And now they're putting 1.5 GB drives on phones. What will they think of next..
Hax.
I thought that at first too, but I think what the poster is actually saying is that Microsoft may not have wanted to be involved with an organization that was so openely supporting Software Freedom Day, something totally antithetical to Microsoft's business model.
I mean really, besides the minor projects they have now, what examples of supporting open source, let alone free software do you know Microsoft to be a part of? I don't think its that big a stretch..
Hax.
It is slashdotted, even if the link is wrong..
Or did the article not mention any alternatives to Word, while the Slashdot write-up says the article advocated AbiWord and/or OpenOffice as replacements?
C'mon people, I think the fact that we're all on Slashdot already pretty much says which side of the fence we fall on. There's no need to embelish on stories like that. Who are you trying to prove it to?
Hax.
> Give a man a URL he surfs one site. Teach a man to google, he surfs for life.
But what if you give him http://www.google.com?
I'm just wondering what merited putting this story on the front page, when nothing has changed with it in 4 years. To illustrate, see the following chronology of events..
2000 > Katie.com published.
2000 > Penguin and Katie's Lawyer say give us the name.
2000 > The real Katie says no.
2001 > Penguin and Katie's Lawyer say give us the name.
2001 > The real Katie says no.
2002 > Penguin and Katie's Lawyer say give us the name.
2002 > The real Katie says no.
2003 > Penguin and Katie's Lawyer say give us the name.
2003 > The real Katie says no.
2004 > Penguin and Katie's Lawyer say give us the name.
2004 > The real Katie says no.
Penguin and Katie's Lawyer continue using the name Katie.com when they have absolutely no claim to it. Who's dumbass fault is that? If I was the real Katie, I'd put up Google ads, popups, popunders, Gator, and whatever the hell else I could and at least make some money off of the traffic. The point is its her domain. Is now, and was four years ago, and was 8 years ago when she registered it. It is clearly HER DOMAIN. No news here.. move on..
I'm sure it will be posted elsewhere, but Mailinator.com and Bugmenot.com are the two tools I use to get around that issue.
I just have to say how stupid the IANAL acronym is getting. Can we pretty much assume that anybody who is on Slashdot commenting on a legal case is not a lawyer?! Can we get some IAAL up in here?! And if not that, then cut out the damn IANAL.. We know YNAL!
Hax.