Not exactly SF writers by profession, but K. Eric Drexler and Ray Kurzweil may be writing what the future will actually be like in 50 years with more detail than any other SF writers I've read. See Nanodot.Org for more information.
Does this mean we'll all have to go back to getting our "geek" news via Usenet??
Hey, there's an idea for SlashCode -- hang a Usenet gateway and an NNTP server off of Slashdot. If they make it advertisement free (or relegate all advertisements to ONE newsgroup!), they could make it a pay service (a la Clarinet [what ever happened to them?]). As long as their subscription rate is low, many hackers might sign up.
Asking about "digital" rights management, is short-sighted as the rights management issue will extend beyond the digital realm with the introduction of nanotech. Consider:
Blood donations to save lives will become a thing of the past as blood will have nanotech machines in it and the corporation(s) creating those machines will not allow such violation of their copyright.
Imagine genetic manipulation of cells being used to prevent diseases and having the customer pay per cell so manipulated.
Simply shaking hands could become a copyright violation as cells with nanotech machines in them will be exchanged.
Developing new nanotech devices will become highly problematic due to the ubiquitousness of well-written, copyrighted software code underlying it.
Manufacturing will require more extensive special permits to ensure that the nanotech assemblers are not used in a way that violates copyright
Given time, you could probably think of many more.
If you keep blocking the ads, then the advertisers will give up and you will get to pay for the content. It's that simple.
Not really. Think about it. Until the Internet can handle large-scale micropayments, web-sites that decide to go the "pay for content" route will have to go with monthly subscriptions and the minimum subscription fee will probably be $10/month. Good content will get subscribers, bad content will disappear, and mid-level content will continue to be free. In fact, advertisers will probably continue to support free sites and will tone their ads down (as well as the information they collect) in the hope of getting average people to turn off their ad busting software rather than continue the arms race.
Of course, everything changes if someone develops a reliable, secure, and anonymous micro-payments system.
This pyramid keyboard reminds me of the Data Hand keyboard (search Yahoo for "Data Hand") except that the Data Hand looks more flexible in that each finger has 5 switches to choose from.
Advertiser buy your information from the banks and begin targetting you (day and night) to buy their wares.
Fake advertisers acquire your information and begin blackmailing you about your spending habits (is everything you bought above board?).
Loan officers may be interested to know how close to the edge you consistently run on your bank balances or what weird or expensive items you've bought recently.
The point is that this information is just one drop in the overall bucket that can be acquired about you and used to track you. If you're living a puritan lifestyle somewhere, then this may not be an issue for you. However, everybody has little foibles that could come back to haunt them if someone else can dip into a database somewhere to find the information.
Interesting. You're not the first I've heard attempting to do this and I think its an admirable idea. Question: how do you handle paying for very big acquisitions (cars, homes, etc.)? Also, have you ever started (or attempted to start) a business? If not, would you ever consider it and what impact would that have on your lifestyle of hiding your credit? Finally, is this lifestyle something you did right from the very beginning or were you a credit user for awhile and then shifted to cash-only?
All the people with money to invest who've been trying to decide if "open source" is a potential business opportunity or just a college hobby.
Interesting question -- if all the Linux companies go down, will hardware vendors continue to think its worthwhile to port their drivers to Linux?
Worse yet, given the track record of Sun, HP, IBM, and SGI on UNIX, are we going to see (possibly proprietary) Linux variants that are incompatible with each other if these companies are the ones left supporting Linux?
There seems to be a lot of belief that DDOS attacks are done by kids in order to prove how big a bully they are. Perhaps there is a more devious reason -- driven by the people behind the scenes. There is speculation that the Internet (or someplace like it) will be the location of the next World War. DDOS attacks now could be the first tests for bigger and more coordinated means of crippling a range of computers for an extended period of time. If the Internet succeeds (a big if in the current downturn), more transactions will be done online, so an extended DDOS attack could cripple major amounts of business (who says that war is merely conducted by governments).
Think about it...
I am surprised that the big computer companies haven't attempted to tap into the home market more thru the use of modular systems. I think the home user would be more willing to buy (and re-buy!) computer system components if they came in low-cost, interchangeable, and standardized components. This was what made the Apple II and the IBM PC more attractive than what came before. Now this needs to be scaled up to rack mountable systems.
I could see future homes having a special closet (or two) where rack-mount systems could be installed. These closets would have networking (etc.) connections to all other rooms in the house. Home owners would buy a powerful server (or two) to install in the closet, then buy components for other rooms (monitors, mice, speakers, cameras, microphones, etc.). As new and more powerful components are created, the home owner could swap old items out for the new ones.
The key to making it all work, though, will be
standards.
I agree with you that more anonymous tools are needed. The problem (AFAIK) is that no one has found a way to be truly anonymous on the Internet and still be able to carry on business. Nothing is as truly anonymous as being able to walk into a store, plunk down some cash for an item, and walk out without ever providing anything that identifies you.
Consider:
A rented drop box for receiving parcels will undoubtedly still have to be signed for.
Depositing money into digital cash will undoubtedly require verification.
The above allows patterns of transaction to potentially be collected by the verifiers.
That gives them information for advertisement purposes (or to pass onto other advertisers).
I don't think such a world will come into being due to market influence becauses businesses abhor anonymous customers. If this world is to come into being, it will most likely have to be legislated into existence.
Is it time for someone to invent a solution to this problem? Actually, the solution is probably not all that hard, but its going to take clout and money to get it implemented. All it would take is for several companies (like Mail Boxes, Etc. and Digicash) to provide something like the following for a (small?) fee:
* Create a real, but anonymous mailbox
* Create a fake email address (goes to/dev/null)
* Create a credit card with fake info or
* Setup an anonymous digital cash account
This was the promise of digital cash, wasn't it? The use of cash is totally anonymous and, unless we want to lose our anonymity, we're going to have to start asking for online anonymity tools. Although some group of companies could provide these tools, it should probably be controlled by the government to ensure laws are put into place to keep things safe.
Well, I'm pretty sure that RMS would never accept your proposed "fix" to the GPL
Why? I think his interest is software freedom, so I would think that any approach that promotes that would still be basically agreeable to him.
I don't think that the clauses as you wrote them would have the effect you're looking for, though.
Hmmm. At first glance, I thought you weren't getting my approach. However, on second thought, I see what you mean and I'll have to consider if there is an adjustment that takes that into account. My goal was to allow someone to "profit" from distributing their open source software until someone else makes a significant change to it (at which point the new person can do the profitting). In that way, the software is still free, but businesses can see a revenue model for the development of free software (and, thus, it would be worth their while to develop it).
You seem to believe that hundreds of programmers are making a terrible mistake licensing their software under the GPL, since it hinders their ability to become stinking rich directly from the sale of that software.
No, it has nothing to do with "hindering" their ability to become stinking rich. If they want to give their software away, even in my model (if it worked), they are free to distribute it at no cost. I am not even suggesting changing the "derivation" clause, so, once they release their software, it will remain open. I was only suggesting changing the "distribution" clause to give the developer the potential for a solid revenue stream (but, obviously, my idea has flaws).
People who chose to release their code under GPL want to be sure that no one ELSE can sell their work.
Careful! Is it that they want to make sure that no one else can "sell" their work or that they want to make sure that no one else can prevent their code from being "shared"? The two are NOT the same thing (for instance, there is a lot of GPLed software on any Linux distribution, so you could say that the distributors are profitting from GPLed code).
If they are GPLing their code simply to prevent others from "selling" it, then they are being hypocritical because that was not the intent of the GPL.
Why do those rewards have to be so cleanly separated? Why can't free software developers make a profit from their work more directly?
As I see it, the GPL was meant to promote software freedom, but, because of its supposed parasitic nature, actually dissuades many people from contributing to the development of that GPLed software. Again, as I see it, the reason for this is that these people feel they cannot profit (read: recoup costs) from the development of the software when the distribution of that software is uncontrolled (ie. anyone can copy the software once its released). My suggestion to "fix" this is to adjust the GPL to allow for a bit of control over distribution by encouraging unrestricted modification of the software, but limit distribution of the software to the persons (or designates) who last modified that version of the software. In this manner, businesses may truly exploit the GPL's "cost of distribution" clause to recover costs (and, yes, make a profit) without resorting to proprietary, closed source code. So, customers may still make changes to the source code as they see fit which they could then distribute in a new release (if they thinks its worthwhile) or contribute back to the original developer (if they don't want to get into distribution work).
You might claim that I could go out and recreate all GPLed software and put it all under a license like I am describing above. True, but that's merely a shifting of focus and, ultimately, doesn't address the problem (ie. the GPL from a business point of view). To encourage more businesses to put more resources into the development of GPLed software, the GPL must provide better mechanisms for those businesses to see a profit from the development. My approach attempts to do that without sacrificing the freedom of the code to be further changed and modified by the user.
You just don't seem to get it. It's not about denying someone the ability to profit from their own labor. It's about denying someone else the ability to profit from your labor.
No, you don't seem to get it. As has been shown time and time again, the GPL prevents people from profitting from their development under the simple principle of "why should I pay you for it when I can copy it for free from him?". Also, denying someone else the ability to profit from your labor is exactly the same thing as denying yourself the ability to profit from your labor.
Let's imagine a world where the GPL had a few more clauses that might make it more palatable to those wishing to profit from the software:
GPLed code may only be distributed by the original distributor of the code unless...
The original distributor decides to allow anyone to distribute his version of the code or...
The original GPLed code is modified in which case the modified distribution may only be distributed by the modifier (ie. he is now the original distributor of the modified version).
There are probably holes in these clauses (I haven't done a lot of thinking about it), but the goal is to leave the code "open" and, yet, control how the code is distributed (so that the distributor may profit from the distribution if he so chooses). In this manner, the goal of the GPL is preserved in that code can be shared and modified as the "customer" chooses. The obvious problem, though, is how to physically control the distribution of the code (its the same problem that proprietary software faces).
Would this more appropriately address both sides of the argument?
Anybody want an Amiga 2000 (with much software)? I haven't used it in about 3 years and have been meaning to find a new home for it.
Re:MS vs. Open Source business model
on
Ask Robert Young
·
· Score: 1
Do they get it for "free"? It's very hard to rely on the development of people who are not paid, so you undoubtedly have to do a lot of your own development to keep the ball rolling.
If only Microsoft had some kind of product for me...
We're sorry. The license you have been attempting to access has been disconnected or is no longer in service. Please logout and try your license again.
just how many leads do you think they get from those ads? do you think the sales generated from those ads cover the costs of running the service? I think not...
Why not? Do you know what the cost comparison is (cost of placing the ad vs. value of the potential sale)? It's probable the same as SPAM.
Slashdot Mirror
Not exactly SF writers by profession, but K. Eric Drexler and Ray Kurzweil may be writing what the future will actually be like in 50 years with more detail than any other SF writers I've read. See Nanodot.Org for more information.
Alternative answer: you sell leftover chicken parts to Kentucky Fried Chicken!
Does this mean we'll all have to go back to getting our "geek" news via Usenet??
Hey, there's an idea for SlashCode -- hang a Usenet gateway and an NNTP server off of Slashdot. If they make it advertisement free (or relegate all advertisements to ONE newsgroup!), they could make it a pay service (a la Clarinet [what ever happened to them?]). As long as their subscription rate is low, many hackers might sign up.
Possibilities?
Hmmmm....
A supercomputer game machine...
Asking about "digital" rights management, is short-sighted as the rights management issue will extend beyond the digital realm with the introduction of nanotech. Consider:
Given time, you could probably think of many more.
Not really. Think about it. Until the Internet can handle large-scale micropayments, web-sites that decide to go the "pay for content" route will have to go with monthly subscriptions and the minimum subscription fee will probably be $10/month. Good content will get subscribers, bad content will disappear, and mid-level content will continue to be free. In fact, advertisers will probably continue to support free sites and will tone their ads down (as well as the information they collect) in the hope of getting average people to turn off their ad busting software rather than continue the arms race.
Of course, everything changes if someone develops a reliable, secure, and anonymous micro-payments system.
This pyramid keyboard reminds me of the Data Hand keyboard (search Yahoo for "Data Hand") except that the Data Hand looks more flexible in that each finger has 5 switches to choose from.
How about these:
The point is that this information is just one drop in the overall bucket that can be acquired about you and used to track you. If you're living a puritan lifestyle somewhere, then this may not be an issue for you. However, everybody has little foibles that could come back to haunt them if someone else can dip into a database somewhere to find the information.
Yeah, but what are the banks going to know about you if you always get cash at the ATM near your house?
Interesting. You're not the first I've heard attempting to do this and I think its an admirable idea. Question: how do you handle paying for very big acquisitions (cars, homes, etc.)? Also, have you ever started (or attempted to start) a business? If not, would you ever consider it and what impact would that have on your lifestyle of hiding your credit? Finally, is this lifestyle something you did right from the very beginning or were you a credit user for awhile and then shifted to cash-only?
All the people with money to invest who've been trying to decide if "open source" is a potential business opportunity or just a college hobby.
Interesting question -- if all the Linux companies go down, will hardware vendors continue to think its worthwhile to port their drivers to Linux?
Worse yet, given the track record of Sun, HP, IBM, and SGI on UNIX, are we going to see (possibly proprietary) Linux variants that are incompatible with each other if these companies are the ones left supporting Linux?
Shouldn't they both have freedoms?
There seems to be a lot of belief that DDOS attacks are done by kids in order to prove how big a bully they are. Perhaps there is a more devious reason -- driven by the people behind the scenes. There is speculation that the Internet (or someplace like it) will be the location of the next World War. DDOS attacks now could be the first tests for bigger and more coordinated means of crippling a range of computers for an extended period of time. If the Internet succeeds (a big if in the current downturn), more transactions will be done online, so an extended DDOS attack could cripple major amounts of business (who says that war is merely conducted by governments). Think about it...
I am surprised that the big computer companies haven't attempted to tap into the home market more thru the use of modular systems. I think the home user would be more willing to buy (and re-buy!) computer system components if they came in low-cost, interchangeable, and standardized components. This was what made the Apple II and the IBM PC more attractive than what came before. Now this needs to be scaled up to rack mountable systems.
I could see future homes having a special closet (or two) where rack-mount systems could be installed. These closets would have networking (etc.) connections to all other rooms in the house. Home owners would buy a powerful server (or two) to install in the closet, then buy components for other rooms (monitors, mice, speakers, cameras, microphones, etc.). As new and more powerful components are created, the home owner could swap old items out for the new ones.
Then again, maybe, just maybe, everyone cares about where you spend your money -- if only for the comedy relief... (*smile*)
I can see it now. The next big reality TV show will be " Who Wants A Big Laugh? ".
I'll use HTML this time.
I agree with you that more anonymous tools are needed. The problem (AFAIK) is that no one has found a way to be truly anonymous on the Internet and still be able to carry on business. Nothing is as truly anonymous as being able to walk into a store, plunk down some cash for an item, and walk out without ever providing anything that identifies you.
Consider:
I don't think such a world will come into being due to market influence becauses businesses abhor anonymous customers. If this world is to come into being, it will most likely have to be legislated into existence.
Is it time for someone to invent a solution to this problem? Actually, the solution is probably not all that hard, but its going to take clout and money to get it implemented. All it would take is for several companies (like Mail Boxes, Etc. and Digicash) to provide something like the following for a (small?) fee: * Create a real, but anonymous mailbox * Create a fake email address (goes to /dev/null)
* Create a credit card with fake info or
* Setup an anonymous digital cash account
This was the promise of digital cash, wasn't it? The use of cash is totally anonymous and, unless we want to lose our anonymity, we're going to have to start asking for online anonymity tools. Although some group of companies could provide these tools, it should probably be controlled by the government to ensure laws are put into place to keep things safe.
Why? I think his interest is software freedom, so I would think that any approach that promotes that would still be basically agreeable to him.
Hmmm. At first glance, I thought you weren't getting my approach. However, on second thought, I see what you mean and I'll have to consider if there is an adjustment that takes that into account. My goal was to allow someone to "profit" from distributing their open source software until someone else makes a significant change to it (at which point the new person can do the profitting). In that way, the software is still free, but businesses can see a revenue model for the development of free software (and, thus, it would be worth their while to develop it).
No, it has nothing to do with "hindering" their ability to become stinking rich. If they want to give their software away, even in my model (if it worked), they are free to distribute it at no cost. I am not even suggesting changing the "derivation" clause, so, once they release their software, it will remain open. I was only suggesting changing the "distribution" clause to give the developer the potential for a solid revenue stream (but, obviously, my idea has flaws).
Careful! Is it that they want to make sure that no one else can "sell" their work or that they want to make sure that no one else can prevent their code from being "shared"? The two are NOT the same thing (for instance, there is a lot of GPLed software on any Linux distribution, so you could say that the distributors are profitting from GPLed code).
If they are GPLing their code simply to prevent others from "selling" it, then they are being hypocritical because that was not the intent of the GPL.
Why do those rewards have to be so cleanly separated? Why can't free software developers make a profit from their work more directly?
As I see it, the GPL was meant to promote software freedom , but, because of its supposed parasitic nature, actually dissuades many people from contributing to the development of that GPLed software. Again, as I see it, the reason for this is that these people feel they cannot profit (read: recoup costs) from the development of the software when the distribution of that software is uncontrolled (ie. anyone can copy the software once its released). My suggestion to "fix" this is to adjust the GPL to allow for a bit of control over distribution by encouraging unrestricted modification of the software, but limit distribution of the software to the persons (or designates) who last modified that version of the software. In this manner, businesses may truly exploit the GPL's "cost of distribution" clause to recover costs (and, yes, make a profit) without resorting to proprietary, closed source code. So, customers may still make changes to the source code as they see fit which they could then distribute in a new release (if they thinks its worthwhile) or contribute back to the original developer (if they don't want to get into distribution work).
You might claim that I could go out and recreate all GPLed software and put it all under a license like I am describing above. True, but that's merely a shifting of focus and, ultimately, doesn't address the problem (ie. the GPL from a business point of view). To encourage more businesses to put more resources into the development of GPLed software, the GPL must provide better mechanisms for those businesses to see a profit from the development. My approach attempts to do that without sacrificing the freedom of the code to be further changed and modified by the user.
No, you don't seem to get it. As has been shown time and time again, the GPL prevents people from profitting from their development under the simple principle of "why should I pay you for it when I can copy it for free from him?". Also, denying someone else the ability to profit from your labor is exactly the same thing as denying yourself the ability to profit from your labor.
Let's imagine a world where the GPL had a few more clauses that might make it more palatable to those wishing to profit from the software:
There are probably holes in these clauses (I haven't done a lot of thinking about it), but the goal is to leave the code "open" and, yet, control how the code is distributed (so that the distributor may profit from the distribution if he so chooses). In this manner, the goal of the GPL is preserved in that code can be shared and modified as the "customer" chooses. The obvious problem, though, is how to physically control the distribution of the code (its the same problem that proprietary software faces).
Would this more appropriately address both sides of the argument?
Anybody want an Amiga 2000 (with much software)? I haven't used it in about 3 years and have been meaning to find a new home for it.
Do they get it for "free"? It's very hard to rely on the development of people who are not paid, so you undoubtedly have to do a lot of your own development to keep the ball rolling.
Why not? Do you know what the cost comparison is (cost of placing the ad vs. value of the potential sale)? It's probable the same as SPAM.