Well, there are LOTS of clues for those willing to examine history. Let's see, before 1967...
Before 1967? As in two generations ago? I guess the US should be occupying Germany considering how they behaved in 1945? How is this "LOTS of clues" to what would happen today? And how does the two years without bombings get ignored? How does the peace between Egypt and Israel or between Jordan and Israel get ignored? All your clues indicate equally well that these peace deals should have failed. And how many people did not die because someone ignored them?
And let's also examine the fact that Israel withdrew from Lebanon 3 years ago, as mandated by the UN, yet this has not reduced hezbollah attacks whatsoever.
What are you talking about? Israel was sending home body bags on a weekly basis during that occupation. I just did a CNN and BBC search and find only a few minor skirmishes mentioned since the withdrawl. Yes, there is still fighting in the Golan but Israel did not withdraw from there.
If the Israelis split their country down the middle and created the Palestinian State, they would still find a reason for suicide bombers to go into Israel, even tho their proported purpose has been accomplished.
What a great way to rationalize continued oppression. You have no idea what would happen if Israel withdrew from the areas they occupy in violation of UN resolutions (what you call "splitting their country") because it has never happened. The fact that there were no bombings during a two year period when Clinton was negotiating toward this withdrawl speaks against your statement.
I think documentation is a big reason. The first English book for Ruby only came out in October 2000. Before that, non-Japanese speakers that wanted to learn Ruby had to sift through source code and examples and that's something that few programmers are willing to do.
I once had a girlfriend who claimed to hate sci-fi. One night I got her to watch the director's cut of Blade Runner with me. She really enjoyed it. Her comment afterward was that it wasn't sci-fi. Her logic was pretty solid... she liked this film and she didn't like sci-fi, therefore this wasn't sci-fi.
I think many people think of things like Star Wars when they think of sci-fi. Just people in spaceships shooting lasers at each other. Personally, I find the ability to stretch reality very helpful in exploring human depths. Some of my favorite Star Trek episodes revolve around Data because you can expore humanity more through him than anyone else. Same with Blade Runner. Or any Bradbury story.
This most basic principle is embodied in both national and international laws.
So now he's a lawyer. Ok, let's look at some text from the WIPO Copyright Treaty:
Contracting Parties may, in their national legislation, provide for
limitations of or exceptions to the rights granted to authors of
literary and artistic works under this Treaty in certain special cases
that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do
not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.
In other words, while the author has primary rights, signing countries can make exceptions to these in their local implementations. Or, if you'd like, we can look at the more recent European Copyright Directive which tells its states:
In certain cases of exceptions or limitations, rightholders should
receive fair compensation to compensate them adequately for the use
made of their protected works or other subject-matter.
So you can create exemptions but you should throw a little money toward the author for doing so. This clause was added because many European countries already had a tax on blank media and they were limiting some of the authors rights in exchange. Specifically, they were legalizing copying in some cases. Or, hell, let's get crazy and look at the US Federal Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 wherein it states:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of
copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a
digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium,
an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based
on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for
making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Wow. Did you read that? So under US law a consumer can not be prosecuted for making non-commercial copies of music they buy. Sounds like what I do. Wild, eh?
Oh well, this is getting tiring. Tell you what, you keep telling yourself that authors have absolute power and I'll keep making my legal copies. That way we'll both be happy. Oh, and next time, don't be quoting me out of context.
Trying to claim that your "free trading" is fair use just dilutes the message of those who are defending things that are fair use, such as format shifting and such.
Note that in some countries, trading among friends and family is legal. I regularly, and legally, send MP3s to friends when I'm trying to interest them in a concert or something. Or if I just find a new cool band that I think they should know about. And I have at least a dozen examples of times this has resulted in profits for the media industry. Therefore, I consider it neither illegal nor immoral.
That's simply not so. I've had to make this point about ten times now; is no one listening?
Listening, yes. Buying, no. First, analog piracy?
Why do you say piracy? I'm talking about fair-use.
Second, it's never been a big concern? Then why did the VCR case go to the Supreme Court? Why taxes on blank analog media?
True, Intertrust doesn't prevent analog use. No system possibly can unless it's wired into our brain. But you fail to show how it's a Good Thing to reserve the use of digital data only for the industry. You seem to just take it as an axiom.
it's possible for technology to either give or take away rights that one or the other party isn't entitled to.
Right. Something that isn't true now. So the introduction of this technology takes abilities away from consumers that they currently have. You just seem to think this is fine.
Yawn. I'm not going to get into an argument about this. Copyright is the law of the land, in virtually every jurisdiction on earth.
I am not arguing against copyright. Copyright is necessary. The question is the balance of power between the industry and the people. At the moment, that balance seems pretty fine. The industry is making money hand over fist and people have the ability to use the technology with little restriction. (And don't give me that bullshit about them losing money lately. They had their largest peak in profits the same quarter that Napster peaked and then they shut it down. How stupid do they need to be to not see the obvious correlation?) What you propose dramatically shifts the balance toward the industry and removes creative use from the people. I just see no benefit to that. Unless you happen to work for Intertrust, of course.
Because it allows you to pay less for something you don't intend to keep. More choice for the consumer is a good thing, dude.
It's a good thing to give the industry the ability to charge us per listen? That's so silly I don't even know what to reply. What makes you think they will give us more choice when they have the power to not do so? Just because they're nice?
Lobbying on the part of media companies to "control new technology" is strictly a phenomenon of the 80's and 90's.
This goes back to the invention of radio. How do you think the royalties system was invented? Just a bunch of guys being nice to each other? The only technologies they have been able to control are those that aren't in the hands of the people. They failed to control cassette tapes in the 70s, VCRs in the 80s, and CD/DVD in the 90s. Luckily I still have rights to use these things as I please. And, you know what? The industry has not collapsed. Quite the opposite actually. Had they succeeded in limiting these things, they wouldn't be doing nearly as well.
You're whole take on this, in fact, appears to me exceedingly short-sighted.
So because I don't agree with your vision of the future, I'm short-sighted? Nice troll. And funny you quote Minsky to make your arguments sound all intellectual and forward-thinking. His was recently one of the signatures on the amacus brief against the DMCA.
That means you can't do anything that you don't have the right to do, but it also means that you can't be preventing from doing anything that you do have the right to do, either.
At the moment, I can buy a CD and I have the right to listen to it. I have the right to put it in my home movies. I have the right to program my doorbell with it. Assuming Intertrust will already exist in all these situations and any others that I can think of is just silly. Any implementation will restrict my ability to use the media more than I have ever been restricted and will stifle creative processes that I currently enjoy. We'll lose and they'll gain.
Huh? This sounds awfully FUDdy to me. The law-- and I mean local and international laws-- gives copyright holders the right to determine how their works can be used by licensees, with limits.
And those limits are rendered useless by the technology. Example... DVD region codes are not legal in Switzerland (actually, they weren't but there were some recent legal changes that may have changed that, I'm not sure). However, because my PowerBook comes with a DVD player whose firmware cannot be rewritten, I am limited by the technology despite what my local law says. Likewise, copying music for family members is perfectly legal in Germany. But this technology will give the industry the power to override that. It isn't hard to think of lots of other examples. We'll lose and they'll gain.
They already have that power. They just have no way of using it.
If they have no way of using it then they don't have that power. And this technology will give it to them. What most people seem to forget is that there is no "natural right" to copyright. The purpose of copyright in the US is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" (as seen in the Constitution). Since they have never had this ability before, it is hard to argue that it has caused the sciences and arts to suffer. Once again, we'll lose and they'll gain.
The owner of that song can choose to let you buy a really cheap rights package that entitles you to listen to it all you want for a limited time, for a price of around $1. That would be a good thing in a lot of ways, no?
How is removing my current ability to keep what I pay for a good thing? I guess you're implying that it could be cheaper for me this way. Are you suggesting the media industry will be willing to take in less profit from me?
Welcome to Earth.;-)
On my planet, the media industry has tried to conrol each new technology and failed every time.
If the world ran on Intertrust, I think it would probably be pretty okay.
Except for the following problems:
It eliminates the fair-use rights (affirmed by the Supreme Court) that encourage creativity and make life fun. You can no longer mix your own music or add sound tracks to your home movies.
It gives the media companies the power to render local law useless. A country no longer has the ability to decide how they feel about rights management because the technology itself mandates it. Might makes right.
It gives the media companies the power to micro-control your use of the content. They can "nickle and dime" you to death by making you pay per listen if they want. Your discription even mentions this ability specifically.
It gives the media industry the ability to influence the futures of other technologies or even other companies by deciding who gets approved to use it and who doesn't. Microsoft anyone?
I admit it's my own little dream world, but I believe that technology is supposed to enhance our lives, not restrict them. Sounds like a huge leap backward to me.
Someone needs to develop a spread-spectrum protocol for network ports. Spread the data across lots of ports and have it intelligent enough to adjust if a port or set of ports is being filtered. With the packets encrypted, they'd never be able to filter again.
I seem to remember that the Berkeley gang issued a patch for the worm shortly thereafter. They said it was "in the Berkeley tradition of improving other people's software" or something like that.
If I want to make a 5 hour drive through the desert on the weekend, are you suggesting I should pay a Taxi driver to drive 10 hours (including his return trip)?
It, of course, depends on your exact circumstances but when I go back to the US for holidays I rarely need to rent a car despite always visiting a lot of friends in a lot of places. Amtrak and Greyhound aren't as good as European transport but they are certainly usable. It is often a question of mentality.
Is it really cost efficient to move an empty train or bus?
The original poster was from Germany and I have to say that German trains are usually a pain in the ass because they are too full rather than too empty. Those of us that forget to make seat reservations often end up on the floor.
Here in Switzerland I rarely have to do without a seat but trains are also rarely empty. Seems to be about the right balance. And I pay only about $1600 for a yearly pass for all public transport (boats, trams, trains, busses) throughout the country. Add to that the amount of extra work/reading I get done while in transit and life is good.
When you say "everyone" you mean the online community. My grandparents wouldn't have a clue what the hell peer-to-peer was
Funny, I was talking to my grandfather about this the other day. He's 80 and is pretty lost with digital technology but in his day he knew security and analog electronics inside and out. Anyway, I was showing him some stuff with my laptop and when I showed him how to rip a CD he said "the music industry must love that". Then I filled him in on all that they have been trying to do to block the technology. His comment was interesting. He smiled and said "they'll lose - they always do". Reminded me that this is a very old war we are fighting.
Those are examples of embracing and extending a standard, not public domain code. The issue is whether GPL'ing code prevents them from embracing and extending. Your examples actually indicate the opposite.
The best example is Microsoft breaking Kerberos
This one is interesting. It's not clear from the FAQ, but I assume that Kerberos is distributed under the usual MIT license and that Microsoft probably did use the code here. On the other hand, since there is an RFC, it really depends on how clear that is in allowing or denying the Microsoft extension.
OR, you pay Bill because he has made changes to it that make it incompatible with the public domain version--which, thanks to Microsoft's monopoly power, makes it the de facto new standard.
Did you read the rest of my post? I talked about "embrace and extend". But let's take the discussion a step further. Since there is actually a butt-load of high quality non-GPL'd code out there, there should be plenty of examples already of Microsoft doing this. Can you name some, please? Although I must admit I'm not a big Windows user, I think of things like the OpenSSL libs, the BSD TCP stack, etc, and can't think of anything Microsoft has done this to. Can you? As many examples as you can think of...
And even if you did become as popular as a big group, exactly how are you going to produce those million CDs?
It should be noted that you need far, far less success to make the same amount of money on your own. But if you did suddenly need one million CDs pressed, I think you'd be in a pretty good position to negotiate a good deal.
This makes Bill happy as a pig in the mud because he can take what I wrote (or paid for with my taxes), embrace, extend, and sell back to me. This means I'm paying twice for it, as I already paid for it with my taxes.
Only if you're really dumb. Sure, you can pay Bill for it or you can go grab the original code and have it free of charge. If you decide to pay Bill, it's because he has added value to it that you decide is worth paying for.
With Free software, you cannot embrace and extend it unless you give the source code back with it.
This argument has some validity but can be solved in ways other than the GPL. Bill wasn't able to embrace and extend Java and that isn't GPL'd. He also hasn't done much to affect TCP and other standards like that which are fully public domain (including implementations from BSD). In fact, I would argue that embrace and extend has been a very small part of Microsoft's "success". Most of it has come from monopolizing file formats (Word) and protocols/APIs (SAMBA) and not allowing competition. This would be true even if all government software was GPL'd.
On the other hand, I think there are many "little guy" companies out there that benefit dramatically from getting a head start with public domain code. For them, having public domain code they can readily use helps level the playing field. This means their success or failure will more likely hinge on the value of their ideas rather than being out gunned by a larger company with a bigger budget.
Of course, the counter argument to that is that they should be using the GPL for moral reasons. But then we're talking religion.
Sure, its easy enough to say "well done" and "finally some sense" - but do we really know what motivated them to say no to the voluntary retention of data?
By supporting their action and citing our reasons, we are making our own statement. This statement is independent of their motivation and one which we might not have been able to make otherwise. I don't see how that hurts.
The EFF is a good start. Are you a member? How many slashdot readers are? I've always wanted a poll done on that. The dues are only $75 per year.
They even have a web site that makes it trivial for you to write your congress folk. They supply text which you can modify or rewrite entirely. They then look up your representatives according to your zip code and will send the text for you. Couldn't be simpler.
So what are you waiting for?
Devon
Re:Is GPL best license for this purpose
on
Open Source TV
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Something closer to the EFF's Open Audio License would probably be more appropriate.
It seems that (once again) we are held to a hypocritical double standard. We are morally required to mourn them, yet they don't have to mourn us
The innocent people in Afganistan that were killed by American weapons? Yes, I believe that every American citizen has the responsibility to realize that they are partially responsible for that and mourn them. Absolutely.
See, the difference is that the American people are, by far, the most powerful people on the planet. And US foreign policy causes much suffering in the world. I mean, how do you think those factions in Afganistan were built in the first place? By the CIA during the Afgan war with Russia. And the US has no small roll in things like the Israeli conflict or dozens of others around the world.
So, yes, I think the American people do have more of a responsibilty to be aware of the plight of others. Because of the enormous power of the US and the poor way that power is often wielded. You are not just like everyone else in the world. You have far more power. And with it comes responsibility.
(in fact, they are permitted to openly celebrate the event!)
Now that's just not fair. Very, very, very, very few people did not have total shock and sympathy for America. I live in Europe and saw overwhelming support from everywhere. And my Arab friends in the Middle East called me immediately to express their horror and condolences. The world stood by America 100% during this time and this can be easily seen by flipping through the headlines of that period.
But, interestingly, I can't say that I have seen the same from Americans lately.
Slashdot Mirror
Before 1967? As in two generations ago? I guess the US should be occupying Germany considering how they behaved in 1945? How is this "LOTS of clues" to what would happen today? And how does the two years without bombings get ignored? How does the peace between Egypt and Israel or between Jordan and Israel get ignored? All your clues indicate equally well that these peace deals should have failed. And how many people did not die because someone ignored them?
And let's also examine the fact that Israel withdrew from Lebanon 3 years ago, as mandated by the UN, yet this has not reduced hezbollah attacks whatsoever.
What are you talking about? Israel was sending home body bags on a weekly basis during that occupation. I just did a CNN and BBC search and find only a few minor skirmishes mentioned since the withdrawl. Yes, there is still fighting in the Golan but Israel did not withdraw from there.
Devon
That's what I keep telling the IRS.
Devon
What a great way to rationalize continued oppression. You have no idea what would happen if Israel withdrew from the areas they occupy in violation of UN resolutions (what you call "splitting their country") because it has never happened. The fact that there were no bombings during a two year period when Clinton was negotiating toward this withdrawl speaks against your statement.
Devon
I think documentation is a big reason. The first English book for Ruby only came out in October 2000. Before that, non-Japanese speakers that wanted to learn Ruby had to sift through source code and examples and that's something that few programmers are willing to do.
Devon
As a native English speaker, I'd like to apologize to our Japanese friends for this remark and thank them for all their efforts.
Devon
I once had a girlfriend who claimed to hate sci-fi. One night I got her to watch the director's cut of Blade Runner with me. She really enjoyed it. Her comment afterward was that it wasn't sci-fi. Her logic was pretty solid... she liked this film and she didn't like sci-fi, therefore this wasn't sci-fi.
I think many people think of things like Star Wars when they think of sci-fi. Just people in spaceships shooting lasers at each other. Personally, I find the ability to stretch reality very helpful in exploring human depths. Some of my favorite Star Trek episodes revolve around Data because you can expore humanity more through him than anyone else. Same with Blade Runner. Or any Bradbury story.
Devon
So now he's a lawyer. Ok, let's look at some text from the WIPO Copyright Treaty:
Contracting Parties may, in their national legislation, provide for limitations of or exceptions to the rights granted to authors of literary and artistic works under this Treaty in certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.
In other words, while the author has primary rights, signing countries can make exceptions to these in their local implementations. Or, if you'd like, we can look at the more recent European Copyright Directive which tells its states:
In certain cases of exceptions or limitations, rightholders should receive fair compensation to compensate them adequately for the use made of their protected works or other subject-matter.
So you can create exemptions but you should throw a little money toward the author for doing so. This clause was added because many European countries already had a tax on blank media and they were limiting some of the authors rights in exchange. Specifically, they were legalizing copying in some cases. Or, hell, let's get crazy and look at the US Federal Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 wherein it states:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Wow. Did you read that? So under US law a consumer can not be prosecuted for making non-commercial copies of music they buy. Sounds like what I do. Wild, eh?
Oh well, this is getting tiring. Tell you what, you keep telling yourself that authors have absolute power and I'll keep making my legal copies. That way we'll both be happy. Oh, and next time, don't be quoting me out of context.
Devon
Note that in some countries, trading among friends and family is legal. I regularly, and legally, send MP3s to friends when I'm trying to interest them in a concert or something. Or if I just find a new cool band that I think they should know about. And I have at least a dozen examples of times this has resulted in profits for the media industry. Therefore, I consider it neither illegal nor immoral.
Devon
Listening, yes. Buying, no. First, analog piracy? Why do you say piracy? I'm talking about fair-use. Second, it's never been a big concern? Then why did the VCR case go to the Supreme Court? Why taxes on blank analog media?
True, Intertrust doesn't prevent analog use. No system possibly can unless it's wired into our brain. But you fail to show how it's a Good Thing to reserve the use of digital data only for the industry. You seem to just take it as an axiom.
it's possible for technology to either give or take away rights that one or the other party isn't entitled to.
Right. Something that isn't true now. So the introduction of this technology takes abilities away from consumers that they currently have. You just seem to think this is fine.
Yawn. I'm not going to get into an argument about this. Copyright is the law of the land, in virtually every jurisdiction on earth.
I am not arguing against copyright. Copyright is necessary. The question is the balance of power between the industry and the people. At the moment, that balance seems pretty fine. The industry is making money hand over fist and people have the ability to use the technology with little restriction. (And don't give me that bullshit about them losing money lately. They had their largest peak in profits the same quarter that Napster peaked and then they shut it down. How stupid do they need to be to not see the obvious correlation?) What you propose dramatically shifts the balance toward the industry and removes creative use from the people. I just see no benefit to that. Unless you happen to work for Intertrust, of course.
Because it allows you to pay less for something you don't intend to keep. More choice for the consumer is a good thing, dude.
It's a good thing to give the industry the ability to charge us per listen? That's so silly I don't even know what to reply. What makes you think they will give us more choice when they have the power to not do so? Just because they're nice?
Lobbying on the part of media companies to "control new technology" is strictly a phenomenon of the 80's and 90's.
This goes back to the invention of radio. How do you think the royalties system was invented? Just a bunch of guys being nice to each other? The only technologies they have been able to control are those that aren't in the hands of the people. They failed to control cassette tapes in the 70s, VCRs in the 80s, and CD/DVD in the 90s. Luckily I still have rights to use these things as I please. And, you know what? The industry has not collapsed. Quite the opposite actually. Had they succeeded in limiting these things, they wouldn't be doing nearly as well.
You're whole take on this, in fact, appears to me exceedingly short-sighted.
So because I don't agree with your vision of the future, I'm short-sighted? Nice troll. And funny you quote Minsky to make your arguments sound all intellectual and forward-thinking. His was recently one of the signatures on the amacus brief against the DMCA.
Devon
At the moment, I can buy a CD and I have the right to listen to it. I have the right to put it in my home movies. I have the right to program my doorbell with it. Assuming Intertrust will already exist in all these situations and any others that I can think of is just silly. Any implementation will restrict my ability to use the media more than I have ever been restricted and will stifle creative processes that I currently enjoy. We'll lose and they'll gain.
Huh? This sounds awfully FUDdy to me. The law-- and I mean local and international laws-- gives copyright holders the right to determine how their works can be used by licensees, with limits.
And those limits are rendered useless by the technology. Example... DVD region codes are not legal in Switzerland (actually, they weren't but there were some recent legal changes that may have changed that, I'm not sure). However, because my PowerBook comes with a DVD player whose firmware cannot be rewritten, I am limited by the technology despite what my local law says. Likewise, copying music for family members is perfectly legal in Germany. But this technology will give the industry the power to override that. It isn't hard to think of lots of other examples. We'll lose and they'll gain.
They already have that power. They just have no way of using it.
If they have no way of using it then they don't have that power. And this technology will give it to them. What most people seem to forget is that there is no "natural right" to copyright. The purpose of copyright in the US is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" (as seen in the Constitution). Since they have never had this ability before, it is hard to argue that it has caused the sciences and arts to suffer. Once again, we'll lose and they'll gain.
The owner of that song can choose to let you buy a really cheap rights package that entitles you to listen to it all you want for a limited time, for a price of around $1. That would be a good thing in a lot of ways, no?
How is removing my current ability to keep what I pay for a good thing? I guess you're implying that it could be cheaper for me this way. Are you suggesting the media industry will be willing to take in less profit from me?
Welcome to Earth. ;-)
On my planet, the media industry has tried to conrol each new technology and failed every time.
Devon
Except for the following problems:
-
It eliminates the fair-use rights (affirmed by the Supreme Court) that encourage creativity and make life fun. You can no longer mix your own music or add sound tracks to your home movies.
-
It gives the media companies the power to render local law useless. A country no longer has the ability to decide how they feel about rights management because the technology itself mandates it. Might makes right.
-
It gives the media companies the power to micro-control your use of the content. They can "nickle and dime" you to death by making you pay per listen if they want. Your discription even mentions this ability specifically.
-
It gives the media industry the ability to influence the futures of other technologies or even other companies by deciding who gets approved to use it and who doesn't. Microsoft anyone?
I admit it's my own little dream world, but I believe that technology is supposed to enhance our lives, not restrict them. Sounds like a huge leap backward to me.Devon
So what name do I look under in the phone book?
Devon
Does this company offer people a way to review these records? Like a credit report or something?
Devon
Someone needs to develop a spread-spectrum protocol for network ports. Spread the data across lots of ports and have it intelligent enough to adjust if a port or set of ports is being filtered. With the packets encrypted, they'd never be able to filter again.
Devon
I seem to remember that the Berkeley gang issued a patch for the worm shortly thereafter. They said it was "in the Berkeley tradition of improving other people's software" or something like that.
Devon
It, of course, depends on your exact circumstances but when I go back to the US for holidays I rarely need to rent a car despite always visiting a lot of friends in a lot of places. Amtrak and Greyhound aren't as good as European transport but they are certainly usable. It is often a question of mentality.
Is it really cost efficient to move an empty train or bus?
The original poster was from Germany and I have to say that German trains are usually a pain in the ass because they are too full rather than too empty. Those of us that forget to make seat reservations often end up on the floor.
Here in Switzerland I rarely have to do without a seat but trains are also rarely empty. Seems to be about the right balance. And I pay only about $1600 for a yearly pass for all public transport (boats, trams, trains, busses) throughout the country. Add to that the amount of extra work/reading I get done while in transit and life is good.
Devon
Funny, I was talking to my grandfather about this the other day. He's 80 and is pretty lost with digital technology but in his day he knew security and analog electronics inside and out. Anyway, I was showing him some stuff with my laptop and when I showed him how to rip a CD he said "the music industry must love that". Then I filled him in on all that they have been trying to do to block the technology. His comment was interesting. He smiled and said "they'll lose - they always do". Reminded me that this is a very old war we are fighting.
Devon
Those are examples of embracing and extending a standard, not public domain code. The issue is whether GPL'ing code prevents them from embracing and extending. Your examples actually indicate the opposite.
The best example is Microsoft breaking Kerberos
This one is interesting. It's not clear from the FAQ, but I assume that Kerberos is distributed under the usual MIT license and that Microsoft probably did use the code here. On the other hand, since there is an RFC, it really depends on how clear that is in allowing or denying the Microsoft extension.
Devon
Did you read the rest of my post? I talked about "embrace and extend". But let's take the discussion a step further. Since there is actually a butt-load of high quality non-GPL'd code out there, there should be plenty of examples already of Microsoft doing this. Can you name some, please? Although I must admit I'm not a big Windows user, I think of things like the OpenSSL libs, the BSD TCP stack, etc, and can't think of anything Microsoft has done this to. Can you? As many examples as you can think of...
Devon
It should be noted that you need far, far less success to make the same amount of money on your own. But if you did suddenly need one million CDs pressed, I think you'd be in a pretty good position to negotiate a good deal.
Devon
Only if you're really dumb. Sure, you can pay Bill for it or you can go grab the original code and have it free of charge. If you decide to pay Bill, it's because he has added value to it that you decide is worth paying for.
With Free software, you cannot embrace and extend it unless you give the source code back with it.
This argument has some validity but can be solved in ways other than the GPL. Bill wasn't able to embrace and extend Java and that isn't GPL'd. He also hasn't done much to affect TCP and other standards like that which are fully public domain (including implementations from BSD). In fact, I would argue that embrace and extend has been a very small part of Microsoft's "success". Most of it has come from monopolizing file formats (Word) and protocols/APIs (SAMBA) and not allowing competition. This would be true even if all government software was GPL'd.
On the other hand, I think there are many "little guy" companies out there that benefit dramatically from getting a head start with public domain code. For them, having public domain code they can readily use helps level the playing field. This means their success or failure will more likely hinge on the value of their ideas rather than being out gunned by a larger company with a bigger budget.
Of course, the counter argument to that is that they should be using the GPL for moral reasons. But then we're talking religion.
Devon
By supporting their action and citing our reasons, we are making our own statement. This statement is independent of their motivation and one which we might not have been able to make otherwise. I don't see how that hurts.
Devon
They even have a web site that makes it trivial for you to write your congress folk. They supply text which you can modify or rewrite entirely. They then look up your representatives according to your zip code and will send the text for you. Couldn't be simpler.
So what are you waiting for?
Devon
Devon
The innocent people in Afganistan that were killed by American weapons? Yes, I believe that every American citizen has the responsibility to realize that they are partially responsible for that and mourn them. Absolutely.
See, the difference is that the American people are, by far, the most powerful people on the planet. And US foreign policy causes much suffering in the world. I mean, how do you think those factions in Afganistan were built in the first place? By the CIA during the Afgan war with Russia. And the US has no small roll in things like the Israeli conflict or dozens of others around the world.
So, yes, I think the American people do have more of a responsibilty to be aware of the plight of others. Because of the enormous power of the US and the poor way that power is often wielded. You are not just like everyone else in the world. You have far more power. And with it comes responsibility.
(in fact, they are permitted to openly celebrate the event!)
Now that's just not fair. Very, very, very, very few people did not have total shock and sympathy for America. I live in Europe and saw overwhelming support from everywhere. And my Arab friends in the Middle East called me immediately to express their horror and condolences. The world stood by America 100% during this time and this can be easily seen by flipping through the headlines of that period.
But, interestingly, I can't say that I have seen the same from Americans lately.
Devon