"During the past four weeks, Sigma had communicated with XVID to resolve the situation. As a result, Sigma has decided to make the current version of the MPEG-4 CODEC available under the GPL license."
OW! OW! Here, would you like a stereo? I just found this one... but you can use it too, if you like. It's kinda neat. Maybe I'll let everyone use my stereo (that I found in your car.)
i got my baccalaureat in france before returning to the states for college... i can say this -- i think i got tested more thoroughly by that test (well, all the tests) than by any of my college exams... sure, CIV was hard... but did it compare to the bac? no.
american schools, for all of their practical knowledge... really don't know how to go in depth, force thought... i mean, how much thought is there in multiple-choice questions? sure, given enough of them, you have to make -quick- decisions... but compared to spending 4 hours on a single problem, where everything connects together, so that in the end, it makes sense? (well, if you got it all right... )
i'm kinda wishing i'd gotten my college education in france -- maybe i should get another degree... i almost feel like i'd have to go back to lycee again though just to get into the colleges... and that -really- sucks.
... but when you still can't find a job, even with a BAC+8, what are you to do? having a bunch of phd's, knowing their voltaire and sartre working the cash registers at mcdonald's isn't exactly a picture of efficiency... not that my BS is doing me much good either =) [french baccalaureat S / maths + american BS Comp Sci/Art]
the problem with your interpretation is that of theft. before we passed copyright law, there was no theft. we created it. what we now refer to as copyrighted material was not something you could steal if you wanted to -- only copies could be stolen: physical copies. what would now be the CD's, the DVD's... not the content.
copyright law was created so as to create a new form of 'thing' which could be stolen, and to protect it. why? not because of some higher morals or mandate from god -- but because we, as a nation (we, as a set of politicians) decided it was a fair trade-off, because we wanted the content. because we wanted it badly enough, and we didn't want to just, say, pay all artists a certain amount per year to produce stuff, or tax people for the right to access any and all content, we created this, the copyright system instead. so that there would be a direct monetary relationship between creating content, and getting rewarded for doing so.
remember this: we, by law, -created-, not codified, not wrote down, not remembered some long-lost knowledge... CREATED this crime. we did it, to ourselves, so we could encourage those who had the ability to create the things we wanted so badly to do so. knowing full-well that they would otherwise revert to some form of production where there would be no copying.
there were many options to get what we wanted... we chose this one. and now the copyright holders (who, in the case of music, are not the artists themselves anymore) are holding us by the balls on the issue. try reading up on some artists' views on the matter. they're not getting the benefits of this law we passed. writers aren't doing much better, either. publishing companies are, and will continue to fight for their right to rip everyone off -- artists and consumers.
maybe it's time for a new system for copyrighteable media, one that would actually reward artists, and truly forward humanity. (note that the original copyright text in US law very much described the goal of copyright as giving a temporary financial benefit to content providers in order to help humanity by providing us with cool, neat, smart stuff to put into our brains... i'm not sure Nsync qualifies for copyright, given the intent of the law...)
there are also transaction-less laws: at least in oklahoma, masturbation is still a crime. yup. suicide was only made legal in the united states about... oh, seven or so years ago? the government is constantly called upon (admit it: there's usually someone out there who wants the law to go through, besides -just- the politicians) to invade our privacy, down to transaction-less things like jerking off.... alcohol. you don't put people in prison for drinking alcohol, being addicted to their morning coffee (some people are truly dangerous without it) or cig's. but drugs... yes. and yet, all of these are very personal things.
... wouldn't that put a basic price (minimum wage) on copyrighted material? and... based on the price, doesn't that mean that the government is effectively admitting that the digital media publishing companies are drastically over-charging?
after all, if you can keep on making personal copies, and have that cost be a compensation... after a few copies, that's not much at all. and he's still right -- being charged ahead of time, even if it's for something legal, is still unfair. not everyone will make legal copies either.
you realize you've hit the fundamental principle of law around here, right?
A is bad. B and C both cause A to happen. We can't prevent all things that cause A, but we don't like A... so we'll ban what we can. B is easy -- we'll do that. C is hard? well, can we tax it instead?
it's sad, no? law isn't about principles or all-purpose generalizations... we hate ideal things (platonic sense) -- but we have to act on physical things... and we can't always find a mold that fits all cases. so we just do what we like instead...
for the sake of example: my school, while i was living in the dorms, decided that internet censorship was a good thing. so they blocked stuff from coming through the T1 to us from the good ol' internet. they had no way to block us from getting it over phone lines, they didn't search our vehicles, listen to our conversations, or open every package that came in the mail. didn't even as us about those entry points. they only blocked the entry point most easily blocked. and no, they weren't doing it for the sake of their bandwidth (for -that-, they blocked other sites, closed port 21, etc. about a year later.) they were doing it for moral principles. and because they could. and it was easy. and cheap.
never again be surprised at half-assed legislation... it was just the easy butt-cheek.
no, i couldn't help it. had to mention them at some point -- they get very little recognition in the OSS community, even though firebird (no longer interbase) is a sourceforge project, etc.
it's easy to use, multi-platform capable... and it does transactions correctly. it think the problem this user had (not the one i'm responding to) is a lack of understanding transactions: there's the careful way to do it, and then there's the rest.
if i have two transactions, A and B... and A has updated a row, and B asks for it before A has commited, we have many options: refuse, read the change, read as it was before the change... force to wait until commit or rollback occurs, then give latest version (whatever that may be)...
even better is the case of A updating a row, and before it commits, B trying to update that same row (say, counting the number of times something has been updated, without using generators?) -- in that case, you can again: refuse, force to wait, say it worked, then fail one or the other, based on who commits first, etc.
but the safest way is this: A updates, B reads: give B the latest version -on his transaction-... if A updates, B updates: refuse right away, tell him it's locked.
on the first, that's fairly obvious, the second, however, takes reminding yourself of your options: does B get to think it worked, then fail randomly later if A commits? you could also wait around and -hope- A will rollback... but that's rare, all considered. the safest is to fail right away.
(one case for hoping for rolling back would be the use of a temporary table, updating it, then discarding the changes, as part of some temporary process... but that's very risky, and so very rare... bah.)
by the way, for those who like mySQL because of PHP support... consider firebird: as of php 4.2.0 (RC... oh, 4) support for interbase/firebird hasn't given me any trouble. it's easy. as to c++ support, that exists too... also quite easy.... and unlike mysql, it does everything an RDBMS should do, correctly. i have no problem with postgres, except perhaps the backversions thing... kinda worries me. both postgres and firebird, to my knowledge, support arrays as a datatype, although i've never had a use for them (not exactly 3rd normal form, if you ask me...)
and no, i'm not on the firebird team -- i just used it, and fell in love with it...
i in no way meant to imply that GPL was a good idea -- i'd much prefer the idea of just completely opening up the software, public-domain style. the point is that when we read this, coming from microsoft, it's not hard to guess what they mean...... but you're right, i could be reading between the lines, and microsoft is just being benevolent. i agree that they did not specifically state that we should use nothing but closed-source solutions, or make government-created code proprietary in any way...... as to the viral nature of the GPL, yes. it's viral. that was part of the point. also note that, say, LGPL isn't, really... and most of the stuff i would expect to come out of the government would fall more under the category of LGPL-oriented material: improved algorithms, libraries, etc. which can be easily embedded into useful applications. do i want the government to create a new mail client for me? no!... applications don't interest me -- applications don't represent knowledge the way libraries do. and the fact is that LGPL-libraries can easily be used in applications (proprietary) that you sell - sell!
so no. perhaps not GPL. that's fine with me. but i do expect the government to give back to us what we gave them: the idea of government is not charity, it's centralizing our resources so we can all reap the benefits of scale -- that my dollar and yours give us back more than each of us could have done individually. but i -do- want it back at some point. and i don't like paying for it twice.
no, microsoft didn't say the government didn't have to... but can you say they honestly weren't thinking it? that they weren't scheming?... and by the way, Borland Builder beats the living hell out of visual studio... but i do miss visio. for database layouts. and only for database layouts (not the automatic ones, mind you... )... although i'm fine with options, i'd like to mention one possible outcome of such a law -- not that we'd see government workers restricted, but that new software would be written... lots of it. free software. free software that does what you complain about not having... yup, for your tax dollars. and you know what? you'd get it back too -- that software would be free, to you.
... so, you're using their services, paying them for an education. and during that time... inventions of yours become theirs? yes, i'd like to walk into my local fast-food chain, order a meal, and be told that if i come up with any ideas and scribble them down on -their- napkins while sitting at -their- tables (and especially if the energy to do so comes from -their- food) then my ideas are theirs... wonderful.
btw, at my university, we discussed at length the status of our code written during senior projects -- most of the projects were for university-related functions, such as support for prof's, the dorms, some of the departments (especially websites) etc. and we were told that, as far as the prof's knew, there was absolutely nothing transferring ownership of such code to the university... of course, we're still not sure how to split up the ownership between team members =)
what's sad is... i both grew up in europe (france) and my last job (year and a half, with girlfriend and one other programmers) was designing software to run an american-indain health system... one tribe, with a clinic, two pharmacies, a dental office, shrinks, a wellness department... and a billing/referral department which handled the insurance side of things.... i got to see it all. what's funny is what the pharmacist told me, when we were doing the requirements documentation a long time ago (now that i think about it...) -- you can charge as much as you like for medication, they'll just pay whatever they feel like, unless you charge less than what they expect to pay... then they'll go with your price. so really, our formula doesn't matter... might as well always send $1000 as the cost for every prescription...
the insurance system is screwed up -- i'm paying my own now... and i don't even get useful coverage at over $1k/year... my parents (still living in europe) keep teasing me: a doctor visit for $20? $40 for a specialist? -sigh-
if you are correct, and the US government cannot put their research findings under GPL... then the argument that they should 'stear clear of the GPL [implied: in favor of other licenses]' is useless: the government couldn't charge for the stuff even if they wanted to (public domain) so... why do these companies care, except to say that GPL is bad?
notice that they also asked that research not be put under GPL-like licenses, under the assumption that government-funded research should be resold afterwards... personally, i don't appreciate giving money to the government, in the form of taxes, and then having to buy back from them what they discovered thanks to my money...
i'll agree that laws like this can be bad -- wouldn't want to restrict stuff too much... but consider their reasons aren't just financial: in the case of Peru, they were very much interested in having the ability to fix code themselves, look through it for spyware, and write their own, based on what they had access to, if necessary. open standards may not be the norm, but when you have full access to the source code... even non-open standards can become so. (reverse engineering of open-sourced software, mostly because somebody forgot to comment their code?)
note that they are also trying to promote the idea that open-source = no funds, which is not true. red hat and mandrake (and many others) have shown that open source is not without rewards. note also that the french government is getting their linux from mandrakesoft, which, lest i be mistaken, is a french company... the argument about taxes is weak in this case: the french government will be getting linux (free) and support (not so free) from mandrake, and they'll collect taxes back from that same company... promote the creation of tech jobs in france, etc.
so it's not completely loaded -- it is against open source, partially, under the veil of being pro-choice...
you're right that they don't understand leftist politics: the US is also a socialist country (social security anyone?)... it's not strictly driven without government aid to the poor, moving wealth around so the rich don't hog it all... at least, i consider it socialist...
at that rate, do we have any non-socialist countries at all? ones where the government just lets people, economically, do whatever they like, including killing themselves? or do all current governments have -some- sort of socialist-like (because they would hate to call themselves socialist -- sounds like communist... and communist is bad, right?) safetynet / distribution protocol?...
for every copy, it's not that the value diminishes... nono, the total value increases! (perpetual motion)
see, if you divided, then you'd be attributing to each copy its own local value. that's bad. if you had A, and made two copies of it, B and C, then copied C into D and E... the B and D would have different values. but we can't have that, since it's a copyrighted work -- all copies should be treated the same (which, by the way, reminds me... if you copyright a painting,... the copies, vs. the original... have different values. what's the original worth with music, etc.? books?)
so, if the government seizes computers with copies of copyrighted works on them... what do they do with the data? can they resell it? do they burn it like they do drugs (well, we think they do) or do they return each and every copy to the original copyright holder? if they can freely destroy the data, without worrying about it... isn't that destruction of valuables? if not, how can they claim worth?
the reason these items are worth anything is that the copyright holder has the government-given right to charge for copies, made at the publisher's discretion, of the copyrighted works. the worth is... whatever they intended to sell it for. market price, you say? well, if you consider napster... the things are worthless. isn't that how insurance companies calculate worth? cost of replacement? value if sold? but the value of an item that can be reproduced for pratically no cost at all...
i'm just waiting for us to explore the world of star-trek inspired physics: reproducing random items (physical) at will, for the cost of electricity (lots of it, admittedly, by einstein's e=mcc)... copyright the car?
seems like that's more of a case of AT&T hoping the personal insurance companies would cover it -- floods, etc. are usually paid for by the house insurance first. lightning would probably be such a case too, btw. in our cases, it was hardware failure without outside cause, really (don't take that too literally.) now, if house insurance doesn't cover stuff you're leasing... that sucks. that really sucks.
asimov's foundation series -- the belt with the very small nuclear reactor embedded... just do that. every NIC, vidcard, etc. with its own power supply built-in.
or batteries. but they're not nearly as cool.
btw -- speaking of tesla... why not just do the tesla world-wide the-ground-is-powered thing? =)
even if you plan to have the modem for a while, such that the cost of buying is significantly lower than the cost of renting... well... between two households (college students livin' the life outside the dorms) we've had the cable modems in each replaced at least once... maybe twice. good thing we rented -- lightning, network problem, modem decides not to be part of the network, modem decides to never authenticate again, etc.... renting's been good for us. and for us, it's... $10/mo. on top of $40/mo for the service.
the bandwith caps suck, though... with no useful upgrades available in our area... (charter communications, oklahoma)
no really... i mean, God can know each of us, know everything we do, but not the government? damn, what if i (an agnostic) want privacy from God? talk about dictatorial tyrrany... i don't know what the PK is (assuming integer primary keys in the uber-universal database) to see my own records... i can't correct any of them if i disagree with God's opinion of me -- and if He, the almighty, flags me as naughty and sends me to hell... i can't even start a revolution! damn shame, that...
so, like... france (its fifth republic) is a tyrrany? damn...
there are lots of democracies/republics in this world. take a look at switzerland -- just how many national referendums can you claim we've had in the US? and i'd like to mention that in France, my vote for the president counts a whole lot more accurately than in the states (should i remind you of the florida incident?)
the US doesn't have the most fair government system... it -has- been around for a long time, comparitively.
btw -- according to some... we've not been around 7000 years yet. (just a reminder that this, too, is up for debate.)
... i'm amused that we can firmly state that capitalism can work without government control... do we actually know this? as in, do we have examples of, say, 10 years of a country running with no government interference in the matters of companies?
i'm asking because in another post, i had to reply to someone who complained that we knew for a fact that communism -had- been given its fair chance and failed... and for the same reason (no, we don't actually have examples of the theorectical system being implemented as dreamed) we don't actually know, for a fact, that it will / won't work.
so, with capitalism... do we have examples? and why (b)? the point is for the companies to do what is in their best interest -- a monopoly would seem (intuitively, if not necessarily factually) to be in their best interest. monopolies cannot be avoided without some form of control, whether it is governmental or general revolt on the part of the populace. (and then we can debate about the difference when in a democratic environment.) regardless, if you want to actually, in all cases, avoid monopolies... it has to be part of your government, otherwise you wind up with government propaganda telling their citizens that it would be in their best interest to fight the monopoly by buying from the competitor on tuesday, but not wednesday (wouldn't want to create the opposite monopoly.)... so in essense, government control is necessary, even with only these two rules: no government control, and no monopolies. thus it becomes one rules: no government control, except to keep from having monopolies. and as we all know, rules with one exception are begging for more... like, say, taxes... and trade agreements... and zoning... and employment acts... and anti-smoking ads...
i hope you'll at least not be dim enough to say that capitalism is all nice and good... it's about greed. it's about the gamble that in the long run, individuals acting selfishly will, as a side effect, enhance the lives of other individuals as well. as a side effect.
communism was intended to have a different premise: that individuals would give up their 'right' to greed in exchange for an even spread of resources. now then, consider this from a theoretical point of view: -no more marketing: what for? in the US, many products are generated for no good reason. why? because they can market them, so idiots will pay a bit, then throw the item away when they realize (months later) that it's just taking up space in the closet. why do you think we have child labor in foreign countries? to produce the products we need? hell no. to produce the products we don't need, but we can sell anyway. -less overall production: if you stop making stuff you don't need, because the government controls the industries, there's less production. we already have plenty (in the US) so producing less junk will lead to producing less overall. now then... will you complain about that? -standards: even in this kind of system, think that there's no profit from creating random standards ahead of time without consulting the rest of the industry... think about microsoft, and every single time they've broken W3C standards?... the list goes on. but that's theory. in practice, that didn't happen. at the time, the politics dictated that war had to be raged in order to keep systems stable. famine, external forces, etc. all kept the system from ever stabilizing. dictators were needed, if they were going to keep anything going at all. eventually, that failed too. also consider that it wasn't just an internal collapse: the capitalist countries (acting, as we have shown, in their own self-interest, as is natural) actually helped those systems collapse: more market share for them, more people to take money from. is russia that much richer now? no. no, they're not. what they wanted to be free of was a system that didn't work for them -- not the theory. they went through really tough times, both before and after the fall of communism.
so no. it hasn't been given a fair trial. it's like asking if an exam was fair with bystanders shouting answers, throwing money at students, etc. -- it wasn't a closed system (and yet they tried so hard to make it closed!) so we don't actually know what it can look like when 'working' to its theoretical boundary.
i don't like government control. i don't like having decisions made for me at random. i don't like lack of freedom... but those aren't necessary for communism to work. it -can- be a democratic (more democratic than what the US has, a random republic, with an electoral college, of all things?) system, and it can be very open.
that's in theory. give me an island, promise me you won't get in the way... and we'll see.
Slashdot Mirror
what does it look like? starcraft, passively, on a tv screen? scrolling? commentary?
quote:
...
... but you can use it too, if you like. It's kinda neat. Maybe I'll let everyone use my stereo (that I found in your car.)
"During the past four weeks, Sigma had communicated with XVID to resolve the situation. As a result, Sigma has decided to make the current version of the MPEG-4 CODEC available under the GPL license."
OW! OW! Stop kicking me! Alright, here's your damn stereo back! Jeez!
end quote
not quite, more like
OW! OW! Here, would you like a stereo? I just found this one
i got my baccalaureat in france before returning to the states for college ... i can say this -- i think i got tested more thoroughly by that test (well, all the tests) than by any of my college exams ... sure, CIV was hard ... but did it compare to the bac? no.
... really don't know how to go in depth, force thought ... i mean, how much thought is there in multiple-choice questions? sure, given enough of them, you have to make -quick- decisions ... but compared to spending 4 hours on a single problem, where everything connects together, so that in the end, it makes sense? (well, if you got it all right ... )
... i almost feel like i'd have to go back to lycee again though just to get into the colleges ... and that -really- sucks.
american schools, for all of their practical knowledge
i'm kinda wishing i'd gotten my college education in france -- maybe i should get another degree
... but when you still can't find a job, even with a BAC+8, what are you to do? having a bunch of phd's, knowing their voltaire and sartre working the cash registers at mcdonald's isn't exactly a picture of efficiency ... not that my BS is doing me much good either =) [french baccalaureat S / maths + american BS Comp Sci/Art]
the problem with your interpretation is that of theft. before we passed copyright law, there was no theft. we created it. what we now refer to as copyrighted material was not something you could steal if you wanted to -- only copies could be stolen: physical copies. what would now be the CD's, the DVD's ... not the content.
... CREATED this crime. we did it, to ourselves, so we could encourage those who had the ability to create the things we wanted so badly to do so. knowing full-well that they would otherwise revert to some form of production where there would be no copying.
... we chose this one. and now the copyright holders (who, in the case of music, are not the artists themselves anymore) are holding us by the balls on the issue. try reading up on some artists' views on the matter. they're not getting the benefits of this law we passed. writers aren't doing much better, either. publishing companies are, and will continue to fight for their right to rip everyone off -- artists and consumers.
v e/ index.html?pn=1
... i'm not sure Nsync qualifies for copyright, given the intent of the law ...)
copyright law was created so as to create a new form of 'thing' which could be stolen, and to protect it. why? not because of some higher morals or mandate from god -- but because we, as a nation (we, as a set of politicians) decided it was a fair trade-off, because we wanted the content. because we wanted it badly enough, and we didn't want to just, say, pay all artists a certain amount per year to produce stuff, or tax people for the right to access any and all content, we created this, the copyright system instead. so that there would be a direct monetary relationship between creating content, and getting rewarded for doing so.
remember this: we, by law, -created-, not codified, not wrote down, not remembered some long-lost knowledge
there were many options to get what we wanted
http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/lo
maybe it's time for a new system for copyrighteable media, one that would actually reward artists, and truly forward humanity. (note that the original copyright text in US law very much described the goal of copyright as giving a temporary financial benefit to content providers in order to help humanity by providing us with cool, neat, smart stuff to put into our brains
there are also transaction-less laws: at least in oklahoma, masturbation is still a crime. yup. suicide was only made legal in the united states about ... oh, seven or so years ago? the government is constantly called upon (admit it: there's usually someone out there who wants the law to go through, besides -just- the politicians) to invade our privacy, down to transaction-less things like jerking off. ... alcohol. you don't put people in prison for drinking alcohol, being addicted to their morning coffee (some people are truly dangerous without it) or cig's. but drugs ... yes. and yet, all of these are very personal things.
... wouldn't that put a basic price (minimum wage) on copyrighted material? and ... based on the price, doesn't that mean that the government is effectively admitting that the digital media publishing companies are drastically over-charging?
... after a few copies, that's not much at all. and he's still right -- being charged ahead of time, even if it's for something legal, is still unfair. not everyone will make legal copies either.
after all, if you can keep on making personal copies, and have that cost be a compensation
you realize you've hit the fundamental principle of law around here, right?
... we hate ideal things (platonic sense) -- but we have to act on physical things ... and we can't always find a mold that fits all cases. so we just do what we like instead ...
... it was just the easy butt-cheek.
A is bad. B and C both cause A to happen. We can't prevent all things that cause A, but we don't like A... so we'll ban what we can. B is easy -- we'll do that. C is hard? well, can we tax it instead?
it's sad, no? law isn't about principles or all-purpose generalizations
for the sake of example: my school, while i was living in the dorms, decided that internet censorship was a good thing. so they blocked stuff from coming through the T1 to us from the good ol' internet. they had no way to block us from getting it over phone lines, they didn't search our vehicles, listen to our conversations, or open every package that came in the mail. didn't even as us about those entry points. they only blocked the entry point most easily blocked. and no, they weren't doing it for the sake of their bandwidth (for -that-, they blocked other sites, closed port 21, etc. about a year later.) they were doing it for moral principles. and because they could. and it was easy. and cheap.
never again be surprised at half-assed legislation
no, i couldn't help it. had to mention them at some point -- they get very little recognition in the OSS community, even though firebird (no longer interbase) is a sourceforge project, etc.
... and it does transactions correctly. it think the problem this user had (not the one i'm responding to) is a lack of understanding transactions: there's the careful way to do it, and then there's the rest.
... and A has updated a row, and B asks for it before A has commited, we have many options: refuse, read the change, read as it was before the change ... force to wait until commit or rollback occurs, then give latest version (whatever that may be) ...
... if A updates, B updates: refuse right away, tell him it's locked.
... but that's rare, all considered. the safest is to fail right away.
... but that's very risky, and so very rare ... bah.)
... consider firebird: as of php 4.2.0 (RC ... oh, 4) support for interbase/firebird hasn't given me any trouble. it's easy. as to c++ support, that exists too ... also quite easy. ... and unlike mysql, it does everything an RDBMS should do, correctly. i have no problem with postgres, except perhaps the backversions thing ... kinda worries me. both postgres and firebird, to my knowledge, support arrays as a datatype, although i've never had a use for them (not exactly 3rd normal form, if you ask me ...)
...
it's easy to use, multi-platform capable
if i have two transactions, A and B
even better is the case of A updating a row, and before it commits, B trying to update that same row (say, counting the number of times something has been updated, without using generators?) -- in that case, you can again: refuse, force to wait, say it worked, then fail one or the other, based on who commits first, etc.
but the safest way is this: A updates, B reads: give B the latest version -on his transaction-
on the first, that's fairly obvious, the second, however, takes reminding yourself of your options: does B get to think it worked, then fail randomly later if A commits? you could also wait around and -hope- A will rollback
(one case for hoping for rolling back would be the use of a temporary table, updating it, then discarding the changes, as part of some temporary process
by the way, for those who like mySQL because of PHP support
and no, i'm not on the firebird team -- i just used it, and fell in love with it
everyone knows google's 'magic' works thanks to pigeons ...
l
http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.htm
what's with the google shirt? please tell me google wasn't trying to read minds ...
i in no way meant to imply that GPL was a good idea -- i'd much prefer the idea of just completely opening up the software, public-domain style. the point is that when we read this, coming from microsoft, it's not hard to guess what they mean ... ... but you're right, i could be reading between the lines, and microsoft is just being benevolent. i agree that they did not specifically state that we should use nothing but closed-source solutions, or make government-created code proprietary in any way ... ... as to the viral nature of the GPL, yes. it's viral. that was part of the point. also note that, say, LGPL isn't, really ... and most of the stuff i would expect to come out of the government would fall more under the category of LGPL-oriented material: improved algorithms, libraries, etc. which can be easily embedded into useful applications. do i want the government to create a new mail client for me? no! ... applications don't interest me -- applications don't represent knowledge the way libraries do. and the fact is that LGPL-libraries can easily be used in applications (proprietary) that you sell - sell!
... but can you say they honestly weren't thinking it? that they weren't scheming? ... and by the way, Borland Builder beats the living hell out of visual studio ... but i do miss visio. for database layouts. and only for database layouts (not the automatic ones, mind you ... ) ... although i'm fine with options, i'd like to mention one possible outcome of such a law -- not that we'd see government workers restricted, but that new software would be written ... lots of it. free software. free software that does what you complain about not having ... yup, for your tax dollars. and you know what? you'd get it back too -- that software would be free, to you.
so no. perhaps not GPL. that's fine with me. but i do expect the government to give back to us what we gave them: the idea of government is not charity, it's centralizing our resources so we can all reap the benefits of scale -- that my dollar and yours give us back more than each of us could have done individually. but i -do- want it back at some point. and i don't like paying for it twice.
no, microsoft didn't say the government didn't have to
... so, you're using their services, paying them for an education. and during that time ... inventions of yours become theirs? yes, i'd like to walk into my local fast-food chain, order a meal, and be told that if i come up with any ideas and scribble them down on -their- napkins while sitting at -their- tables (and especially if the energy to do so comes from -their- food) then my ideas are theirs ... wonderful.
... of course, we're still not sure how to split up the ownership between team members =)
btw, at my university, we discussed at length the status of our code written during senior projects -- most of the projects were for university-related functions, such as support for prof's, the dorms, some of the departments (especially websites) etc. and we were told that, as far as the prof's knew, there was absolutely nothing transferring ownership of such code to the university
what's sad is ... i both grew up in europe (france) and my last job (year and a half, with girlfriend and one other programmers) was designing software to run an american-indain health system ... one tribe, with a clinic, two pharmacies, a dental office, shrinks, a wellness department ... and a billing/referral department which handled the insurance side of things. ... i got to see it all. what's funny is what the pharmacist told me, when we were doing the requirements documentation a long time ago (now that i think about it ...) -- you can charge as much as you like for medication, they'll just pay whatever they feel like, unless you charge less than what they expect to pay ... then they'll go with your price. so really, our formula doesn't matter ... might as well always send $1000 as the cost for every prescription ...
... and i don't even get useful coverage at over $1k/year ... my parents (still living in europe) keep teasing me: a doctor visit for $20? $40 for a specialist? -sigh-
the insurance system is screwed up -- i'm paying my own now
if you are correct, and the US government cannot put their research findings under GPL ... then the argument that they should 'stear clear of the GPL [implied: in favor of other licenses]' is useless: the government couldn't charge for the stuff even if they wanted to (public domain) so ... why do these companies care, except to say that GPL is bad?
notice that they also asked that research not be put under GPL-like licenses, under the assumption that government-funded research should be resold afterwards ... personally, i don't appreciate giving money to the government, in the form of taxes, and then having to buy back from them what they discovered thanks to my money ...
... but consider their reasons aren't just financial: in the case of Peru, they were very much interested in having the ability to fix code themselves, look through it for spyware, and write their own, based on what they had access to, if necessary. open standards may not be the norm, but when you have full access to the source code ... even non-open standards can become so. (reverse engineering of open-sourced software, mostly because somebody forgot to comment their code?)
... the argument about taxes is weak in this case: the french government will be getting linux (free) and support (not so free) from mandrake, and they'll collect taxes back from that same company ... promote the creation of tech jobs in france, etc.
...
i'll agree that laws like this can be bad -- wouldn't want to restrict stuff too much
note that they are also trying to promote the idea that open-source = no funds, which is not true. red hat and mandrake (and many others) have shown that open source is not without rewards. note also that the french government is getting their linux from mandrakesoft, which, lest i be mistaken, is a french company
so it's not completely loaded -- it is against open source, partially, under the veil of being pro-choice
you're right that they don't understand leftist politics: the US is also a socialist country (social security anyone?) ... it's not strictly driven without government aid to the poor, moving wealth around so the rich don't hog it all ... at least, i consider it socialist ...
... and communist is bad, right?) safetynet / distribution protocol? ...
...
...
at that rate, do we have any non-socialist countries at all? ones where the government just lets people, economically, do whatever they like, including killing themselves? or do all current governments have -some- sort of socialist-like (because they would hate to call themselves socialist -- sounds like communist
would your small country run linux everywhere?
i'm still waiting for my GPL'ed government
for every copy, it's not that the value diminishes ... nono, the total value increases! (perpetual motion)
... the B and D would have different values. but we can't have that, since it's a copyrighted work -- all copies should be treated the same (which, by the way, reminds me ... if you copyright a painting, ... the copies, vs. the original ... have different values. what's the original worth with music, etc.? books?)
... what do they do with the data? can they resell it? do they burn it like they do drugs (well, we think they do) or do they return each and every copy to the original copyright holder? if they can freely destroy the data, without worrying about it ... isn't that destruction of valuables? if not, how can they claim worth?
... whatever they intended to sell it for. market price, you say? well, if you consider napster ... the things are worthless. isn't that how insurance companies calculate worth? cost of replacement? value if sold? but the value of an item that can be reproduced for pratically no cost at all ...
... copyright the car?
see, if you divided, then you'd be attributing to each copy its own local value. that's bad. if you had A, and made two copies of it, B and C, then copied C into D and E
so, if the government seizes computers with copies of copyrighted works on them
the reason these items are worth anything is that the copyright holder has the government-given right to charge for copies, made at the publisher's discretion, of the copyrighted works. the worth is
i'm just waiting for us to explore the world of star-trek inspired physics: reproducing random items (physical) at will, for the cost of electricity (lots of it, admittedly, by einstein's e=mcc)
seems like that's more of a case of AT&T hoping the personal insurance companies would cover it -- floods, etc. are usually paid for by the house insurance first. lightning would probably be such a case too, btw. in our cases, it was hardware failure without outside cause, really (don't take that too literally.) now, if house insurance doesn't cover stuff you're leasing ... that sucks. that really sucks.
asimov's foundation series -- the belt with the very small nuclear reactor embedded ... just do that. every NIC, vidcard, etc. with its own power supply built-in.
... why not just do the tesla world-wide the-ground-is-powered thing? =)
or batteries. but they're not nearly as cool.
btw -- speaking of tesla
even if you plan to have the modem for a while, such that the cost of buying is significantly lower than the cost of renting ... well ... between two households (college students livin' the life outside the dorms) we've had the cable modems in each replaced at least once ... maybe twice. good thing we rented -- lightning, network problem, modem decides not to be part of the network, modem decides to never authenticate again, etc. ... renting's been good for us. and for us, it's ... $10/mo. on top of $40/mo for the service.
... with no useful upgrades available in our area ... (charter communications, oklahoma)
the bandwith caps suck, though
no really ... i mean, God can know each of us, know everything we do, but not the government? damn, what if i (an agnostic) want privacy from God? talk about dictatorial tyrrany ... i don't know what the PK is (assuming integer primary keys in the uber-universal database) to see my own records ... i can't correct any of them if i disagree with God's opinion of me -- and if He, the almighty, flags me as naughty and sends me to hell ... i can't even start a revolution! damn shame, that ...
so, like ... france (its fifth republic) is a tyrrany? damn ...
... it -has- been around for a long time, comparitively.
... we've not been around 7000 years yet. (just a reminder that this, too, is up for debate.)
there are lots of democracies/republics in this world. take a look at switzerland -- just how many national referendums can you claim we've had in the US? and i'd like to mention that in France, my vote for the president counts a whole lot more accurately than in the states (should i remind you of the florida incident?)
the US doesn't have the most fair government system
btw -- according to some
... i'm amused that we can firmly state that capitalism can work without government control ... do we actually know this? as in, do we have examples of, say, 10 years of a country running with no government interference in the matters of companies?
... and for the same reason (no, we don't actually have examples of the theorectical system being implemented as dreamed) we don't actually know, for a fact, that it will / won't work.
... do we have examples? and why (b)? the point is for the companies to do what is in their best interest -- a monopoly would seem (intuitively, if not necessarily factually) to be in their best interest. monopolies cannot be avoided without some form of control, whether it is governmental or general revolt on the part of the populace. (and then we can debate about the difference when in a democratic environment.) regardless, if you want to actually, in all cases, avoid monopolies ... it has to be part of your government, otherwise you wind up with government propaganda telling their citizens that it would be in their best interest to fight the monopoly by buying from the competitor on tuesday, but not wednesday (wouldn't want to create the opposite monopoly.) ... so in essense, government control is necessary, even with only these two rules: no government control, and no monopolies. thus it becomes one rules: no government control, except to keep from having monopolies. and as we all know, rules with one exception are begging for more ... like, say, taxes ... and trade agreements ... and zoning ... and employment acts ... and anti-smoking ads ...
i'm asking because in another post, i had to reply to someone who complained that we knew for a fact that communism -had- been given its fair chance and failed
so, with capitalism
i hope you'll at least not be dim enough to say that capitalism is all nice and good ... it's about greed. it's about the gamble that in the long run, individuals acting selfishly will, as a side effect, enhance the lives of other individuals as well. as a side effect.
... will you complain about that? ... think about microsoft, and every single time they've broken W3C standards? ... the list goes on. but that's theory. in practice, that didn't happen. at the time, the politics dictated that war had to be raged in order to keep systems stable. famine, external forces, etc. all kept the system from ever stabilizing. dictators were needed, if they were going to keep anything going at all. eventually, that failed too. also consider that it wasn't just an internal collapse: the capitalist countries (acting, as we have shown, in their own self-interest, as is natural) actually helped those systems collapse: more market share for them, more people to take money from. is russia that much richer now? no. no, they're not. what they wanted to be free of was a system that didn't work for them -- not the theory. they went through really tough times, both before and after the fall of communism.
... but those aren't necessary for communism to work. it -can- be a democratic (more democratic than what the US has, a random republic, with an electoral college, of all things?) system, and it can be very open.
... and we'll see.
communism was intended to have a different premise: that individuals would give up their 'right' to greed in exchange for an even spread of resources. now then, consider this from a theoretical point of view:
-no more marketing: what for? in the US, many products are generated for no good reason. why? because they can market them, so idiots will pay a bit, then throw the item away when they realize (months later) that it's just taking up space in the closet. why do you think we have child labor in foreign countries? to produce the products we need? hell no. to produce the products we don't need, but we can sell anyway.
-less overall production: if you stop making stuff you don't need, because the government controls the industries, there's less production. we already have plenty (in the US) so producing less junk will lead to producing less overall. now then
-standards: even in this kind of system, think that there's no profit from creating random standards ahead of time without consulting the rest of the industry
so no. it hasn't been given a fair trial. it's like asking if an exam was fair with bystanders shouting answers, throwing money at students, etc. -- it wasn't a closed system (and yet they tried so hard to make it closed!) so we don't actually know what it can look like when 'working' to its theoretical boundary.
i don't like government control. i don't like having decisions made for me at random. i don't like lack of freedom
that's in theory. give me an island, promise me you won't get in the way