First, as the opposing essay points out, no software can be liscenced from a commercial vendor and customized to suit the needs of the research project, now this can be done with an NDA.
Why is this important? If a researcher needs to pay a commercial development firm from his government grant, the PI simply needs to have the contract written so that the software is sold, not licensed, and clearly state that the software will enter the public domain. If it'll "constrain" the research to develop in this way, the PI needs to approach the competition. If there is no competition, then no grant.
With regard to the tainting effect, software patents are a perversion the framers would never have assented to (along with effectively eternal software copyrights, but that's another thread), so their loss would be no tearful event.
The right answer is eminently simple. That unclassified research and its fruits (in this case, software) paid for by the people belong to the people. If we're to buy into the intellectual "property" rhetoric of the software industry, then I guess that means that not releasing government funded software into the public domain is piracy and theft!
Why not let a private company make some money from public domain code--if they added something to it (I'll assume that if they didn't improve it, there wouldn't be many takers)? The thought of that doesn't bother me--the use of tax dollars to fund proprietary code sure does, though.
The problem with that is that if the requirement isn't absolute, there will be code "laundering," by PIs working with corporations where code that was really developed under a government grant somehow becomes code that just happened to be that "code the university was allowed access to."
I stand by the view that code paid for with public money shouldn't just be open source--it should be ceded to the public domain. If it is necessary to use proprietary code on the project (and no, I'm not talking about MS Word for memos, etc.), then the project shouldn't be funded by the government.
Bollocks. If it's paid for with public money, the code needs to be public. If they want to keep their code proprietary, the researchers are free to seek private sources of funding.
The original message said "have been the most reliable," as in "have been the most reliable for a long time," not "have been the most reliable since OS X came out." So if you're saying that OS X is reliable, I agree. If you're saying that the previous versions were, I vehemently disagree. (And I'm capped, so bring on the -1, Trolls).
I'm reminded of the evils of failed inits, users having to set memory on a per application basis, and the sheer lack of ability to do anything except force quit when there's a problem. Yes, Windows has similar difficulties, but Apple put them into the market first:). No, I don't think Windows is particularly better.
That is only true for government agencies. Not for Blockbuster Video, utility companies, movie theatres, bookstores, or (private) colleges. See the Privacy Act of 1974 for details.
Since RPI is private, they most likely made the change to accomodate growing pressure from student associations or even political insiders in the administration. But no federal law required them to do so.
Sorry, dude. While Richard might have been annoyed, his responses and threats were far over the top. Richard appears to be quite fortunate that he didn't pick someone more quick to anger to fuck with--another person might have bought a transatlantic ticket and delivered him a nice and personal ass kicking for less. And if the emails on TeliaHK's site aren't selectively edited, I'd say he deserves one.
The Roxio website doesn't mention that because they need you to upgrade! How else do they expect to pay their lawyers? I'm glad I warezed a 5.0 "upgrade" for a relative's CDR when the bundled 4.0 failed under XP. At least these sellout bastards didn't get any of his money.
It seems to me that the only reason a commercial audio app would use freedb instead of gracenote is so they can make *more* money than they would have otherwise.
Or maybe they'd like not to be forced to display the Gracenote logo, to lock their users (i.e. customers) out of the servers of their choice, or to support a company that's whole basis for existence is locking up data given by the community based on the expectation that it would remain free.
I actually did download the database, grep all the files, and can find no mention of the GPL. I had relied on the assertions of the publishers of freedb.org, who say (emphasis mine):
Furthermore, many people submitted the information without charging anybody and they thought their help would remain free, because
the initital license was GPL
So if I am in error, so are the folks at the freedb. But if both of us are in error, what does that tell us? That Ti Kan is apparently a sellout bastard who took the work of others and locked it up for his own gain. If there's a tenth circle of Hell, I hope there's room for him near Hitler, Stalin, and Ellison.
The "IP" of the tapes misses the point. Don't forget that CD's of Usenet archives were going for about $300 a pop.
Those two statements contradict each other. If "IP" misses the point, then the tapes are worth their value as blank media, nothing more. UT should be grateful for having had a chance to contribute to the historical record. The people there that matter probably are. BTW, have you ever tried to get authorization for anything out of a bureaucracy like a university? Sometimes, as the venerable Grace Hopper said, it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission.
That's incredible. Now these scumbags who stole (to use the rhetoric of intellectual "property") the work of all those who entered data to what was a GPL'd database by locking it up have won a battle they can use to bludgeon other companies.
Thanks, Roxio, for your character and grace under pressure. NOT.
I'm sure if UT protests, Google will be happy to either return the tapes or compensate them for the cost of replacement blank media. UT doesn't own the "intellectual property" of those Usenet posts any more than you do.
Trying to artificially create great volume of "discontent voices" is unethical and illegal as well.
Then I guess Microsoft, Exxon, the California Raisin Advisory Board and others are acting illegally and unethically, then. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander-lock 'em all up and throw away the key.
Two fine fellows posting 14,000 messages on 100 message boards is a wee bit over the top, I think.
I see. So criticizing one's former employer is protected speech, so long as one doesn't stand much chance of actually being heard.
So is sending emails to over 35,000 people.
Agreed.
No matter what, one thing is certain--printCafe is a company to stay the hell away from, as an employee or as a customer. And thanks to their court action, lots more people know that than ever would have.
Actually, schools are able to price discriminate very effectively since they know exactly what you make and your net worth
That's truly a +1, Insightful comment if there ever was one in my book! Now why is it that schools can know their students' and parents' net worth? Why, it's the financial aid application process! So, in addition to the government putting more money into colleges (increasing the cost of education, I proferr), it is providing, through the required financial statements, the information necessary for price discrimination!
So all the students are paying their tuition and fees with no Federal grants or loans? None of the research going on there is being funded by the NSF or any other Federal agency? No portion of Cornell's operating budget derived from public funds pays for any of the Engineering college's infrastructure or personnel? Then I guess I don't have an issue.
The scope of the land grant is interesting information--thanks.
I see your point, but I don't particularly believe that schools like Cornell are funneling the bucks they get from these side businesses like patent enforcement into education. It's hard to claim educational money from the government is supporting its objective, an educated populace, without limiting its use to education. Cornell, apparently, has money to burn on lawyers.
With regard to "subsidies" for individuals (e.g. home tax deduction, tuition tax credits), let me make a trollish statement here--if you believe a tax deduction is a subsidy, I'll start subsidizing you. Give me 40% of your income. Your subsidy will be that I'll let you keep that 40% of the money you earn that you spend on things like my pet charities which I like you spending your money on. (Weak, I know, but it's a pet peeve.)
Federal grants and guaranteed loans are actually subsidies to higher education institutions, not individuals. They put upward pressure on the price of education (more dollars chasing classroom seats == incentive to soak that money up--look what's been happening to tuition rates, particularly after the Tax Relief Act of '97), rather than increasing access and choice. There was a time when a student could work himself to death to pay his way through a selective private college. Now that's not even theoretically possible for the best schools--you still have to be rich or brilliant, and if you're only brilliant, you'll be borrowing.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is this important? If a researcher needs to pay a commercial development firm from his government grant, the PI simply needs to have the contract written so that the software is sold, not licensed, and clearly state that the software will enter the public domain. If it'll "constrain" the research to develop in this way, the PI needs to approach the competition. If there is no competition, then no grant.
With regard to the tainting effect, software patents are a perversion the framers would never have assented to (along with effectively eternal software copyrights, but that's another thread), so their loss would be no tearful event.
The right answer is eminently simple. That unclassified research and its fruits (in this case, software) paid for by the people belong to the people. If we're to buy into the intellectual "property" rhetoric of the software industry, then I guess that means that not releasing government funded software into the public domain is piracy and theft!
Why not let a private company make some money from public domain code--if they added something to it (I'll assume that if they didn't improve it, there wouldn't be many takers)? The thought of that doesn't bother me--the use of tax dollars to fund proprietary code sure does, though.
So you agree, then, that unclassified code developed as a result of government-funded research should be placed in the public domain.
I stand by the view that code paid for with public money shouldn't just be open source--it should be ceded to the public domain. If it is necessary to use proprietary code on the project (and no, I'm not talking about MS Word for memos, etc.), then the project shouldn't be funded by the government.
Bollocks. If it's paid for with public money, the code needs to be public. If they want to keep their code proprietary, the researchers are free to seek private sources of funding.
The original message said "have been the most reliable," as in "have been the most reliable for a long time," not "have been the most reliable since OS X came out." So if you're saying that OS X is reliable, I agree. If you're saying that the previous versions were, I vehemently disagree. (And I'm capped, so bring on the -1, Trolls).
I'm reminded of the evils of failed inits, users having to set memory on a per application basis, and the sheer lack of ability to do anything except force quit when there's a problem. Yes, Windows has similar difficulties, but Apple put them into the market first :). No, I don't think Windows is particularly better.
Ha ha ha ha, ha, . . . ha . . . you are joking, right?
Probably not, since they're just AC wankers, probably on the smoothwall team, anyway.
Yup. But when doctors' offices send stool and urine samples to labs, it's not unsolicited, and thus not assault.
Since RPI is private, they most likely made the change to accomodate growing pressure from student associations or even political insiders in the administration. But no federal law required them to do so.
~~~
Sorry, dude. While Richard might have been annoyed, his responses and threats were far over the top. Richard appears to be quite fortunate that he didn't pick someone more quick to anger to fuck with--another person might have bought a transatlantic ticket and delivered him a nice and personal ass kicking for less. And if the emails on TeliaHK's site aren't selectively edited, I'd say he deserves one.
National ID card advocacy and the goatee. Not necessarily in that order.
The Roxio website doesn't mention that because they need you to upgrade! How else do they expect to pay their lawyers? I'm glad I warezed a 5.0 "upgrade" for a relative's CDR when the bundled 4.0 failed under XP. At least these sellout bastards didn't get any of his money.
Or maybe they'd like not to be forced to display the Gracenote logo, to lock their users (i.e. customers) out of the servers of their choice, or to support a company that's whole basis for existence is locking up data given by the community based on the expectation that it would remain free.
So if I am in error, so are the folks at the freedb. But if both of us are in error, what does that tell us? That Ti Kan is apparently a sellout bastard who took the work of others and locked it up for his own gain. If there's a tenth circle of Hell, I hope there's room for him near Hitler, Stalin, and Ellison.
Those two statements contradict each other. If "IP" misses the point, then the tapes are worth their value as blank media, nothing more. UT should be grateful for having had a chance to contribute to the historical record. The people there that matter probably are. BTW, have you ever tried to get authorization for anything out of a bureaucracy like a university? Sometimes, as the venerable Grace Hopper said, it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission.
Thanks, Roxio, for your character and grace under pressure. NOT.
I'm sure if UT protests, Google will be happy to either return the tapes or compensate them for the cost of replacement blank media. UT doesn't own the "intellectual property" of those Usenet posts any more than you do.
Then I guess Microsoft, Exxon, the California Raisin Advisory Board and others are acting illegally and unethically, then. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander-lock 'em all up and throw away the key.
the Sorenson Codec
o threats against skin authors
o crippled DVD authoring software
o licensing the one-click patent
among Apple's other crimes,
I see. So criticizing one's former employer is protected speech, so long as one doesn't stand much chance of actually being heard.
So is sending emails to over 35,000 people.
Agreed.
No matter what, one thing is certain--printCafe is a company to stay the hell away from, as an employee or as a customer. And thanks to their court action, lots more people know that than ever would have.
That's truly a +1, Insightful comment if there ever was one in my book! Now why is it that schools can know their students' and parents' net worth? Why, it's the financial aid application process! So, in addition to the government putting more money into colleges (increasing the cost of education, I proferr), it is providing, through the required financial statements, the information necessary for price discrimination!
So all the students are paying their tuition and fees with no Federal grants or loans? None of the research going on there is being funded by the NSF or any other Federal agency? No portion of Cornell's operating budget derived from public funds pays for any of the Engineering college's infrastructure or personnel? Then I guess I don't have an issue.
The scope of the land grant is interesting information--thanks.
With regard to "subsidies" for individuals (e.g. home tax deduction, tuition tax credits), let me make a trollish statement here--if you believe a tax deduction is a subsidy, I'll start subsidizing you. Give me 40% of your income. Your subsidy will be that I'll let you keep that 40% of the money you earn that you spend on things like my pet charities which I like you spending your money on. (Weak, I know, but it's a pet peeve.)
Federal grants and guaranteed loans are actually subsidies to higher education institutions, not individuals. They put upward pressure on the price of education (more dollars chasing classroom seats == incentive to soak that money up--look what's been happening to tuition rates, particularly after the Tax Relief Act of '97), rather than increasing access and choice. There was a time when a student could work himself to death to pay his way through a selective private college. Now that's not even theoretically possible for the best schools--you still have to be rich or brilliant, and if you're only brilliant, you'll be borrowing.