Hrm... the Gravis Gamepad Pro is modelled after the Sony controllers (and is a hell of a lot better designed IMHO), and the Gravis Xterminator is similar to the Sega controllers. With commercial emulators, there is an even stronger market incentive for companies to make PC controllers resemble console controllers. And all modern computer monitors support higher resolution than television. The emulator could probably use a higher frame size than the PSX as well, so you could have a much sharper, much more detailed picture.
I was just thinking of situations like this... interesting that there is such significant example.
So what happens if some disgruntled employee releases that code to the public (or someone steals it off there servers like what happened to the Quake source a few years ago)? All the code is covered by the GPL, but HP owns copyright to their modifications. HP and Intel would probably claim trade secret status on information in that code as well. But they can't do squat about it because the GPL prevents them from restricting further distribution of the code.
Though The Economist is an excellent and relatively unbiased magazine, the article cited is an EDITORIAL, and is hardly evidence that the Dvorak is in any way inferior. As for the articles cited within the editorial, those that wrote those articles have a strong bias toward discounting *any* example of market failure, and will construct their research accordingly. Visit Liebowitz's webpage to see just what his ideology is. Most of us would agree that bad standards can locked in, because we've seen it happen. But it is hard to demonstrate "better" versus "good enough" to those who have little understanding of the technology in question, or already equate market position as evidence of being "better".
We've already got steenkin bureaucracies, they're called ICANN and Network Solutions. There more distributed the power gets, and the more diverse the interests are with it, the better. So another advocacy group is a good thing.
Your examples are a different catagory. Neither of them have any value if they were public property. (Well, your tax information might, but privacy concens limit that, just as national security concerns limit nuclear technology).
Think of tax money as an investment. You expect a return, right? You payed for that government research, you ought to have rights to it.
RMS did AI research, and then started the GNU project on that public funding. I'd say you got back much more than payed for (assuming you were alive and paying taxes at the time). If that's "welfare", we should encourage more people to get on the dole.:)
If the Open Source people are Stalanists, what does that make the Free Software people? Nazis?
There's a fundamental point you seem to be missing here. US companies must abide by US law, but those in other countries don't. "Open Source" is a philosophical movement as much as it is a trade name, and is hardly confined to US borders. It is possible for US law to conflict with the Open Source definition, and that does not automatically invalidate the definition.
What I want to know is whether or not that provision in the license is dictated by our laws, or if it is just Apple going to extreme lengths to cover it's butt. It seems absurd that we require all importers of US goods to abide by our trade restrictions. I mean, how do you stop someone from selling bread made from American wheat to redidents in Cuba or Libya? Are there shrink wrap licenses on every bag of Colonial we ship to other countries?:) And if there were such a thing, how the hell do those buearocrats think they can enforce it?
They're so anxious to blame mp3 for music piracy and declining sales, they've completely forgot their old scapegoat: used cd stores. I remember that they tried to get laws passed a few years ago preventing the reselling of CDs.
Of course, they were right about that one though, not that it should have any effect on the legality. I haven't bought a single new CD in over two years because I can find almost anything I want used. I make the decisions to only buy used CDs because of the way the record industry has reacted to MP3, and for the idiotic taxes on recordable media they lobbied for. I get my music legally, and they don't get a dime of my money.
MediaOne in Atlanta at least has Comedy Central, but no SciFi Channel and no Independant Film Channel. And the lazy bastards still haven't deployed cable modem in my area, even though they said it would be done by last November.
Ah, but you don't have to destroy the code, you simply may not redistribute it. Which allows you to modify it yourself to avoid patent restrictions, and take the legal consequences into your own hands.
(a) If for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction finds any provision of this License, or portion thereof, to be unenforceable, that provision of the License will be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to effect the economic benefits and intent of the parties, and the remainder of this License will continue in full force and effect.
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if applicable law prohibits or restricts You from fully and/or specifically complying with Sections 2 and/or 3 or prevents the enforceability of either of those Sections, this License will immediately terminate and You must immediately discontinue any use of the Covered Code and destroy all copies of it that are in your possession or control. ------------------------------------------------ -
A _court_ must first decide when and where the license is unenforcable (meaning you may have to hire a lawyer to work with code you helped write!), and the second part seems to imply that the entire license can be voided due to any conflict with existing or _future_ laws. You could lose acess of your own code because a local bureuocrat changes the laws.
Screw this. Any developer would be an idiot to work on this software. You're basically working for apple for free. They own the code, and anything you add to it you may lose.
Slashdot Mirror
Hrm... the Gravis Gamepad Pro is modelled after the Sony controllers (and is a hell of a lot better designed IMHO), and the Gravis Xterminator is similar to the Sega controllers. With commercial emulators, there is an even stronger market incentive for companies to make PC controllers resemble console controllers. And all modern computer monitors support higher resolution than television. The emulator could probably use a higher frame size than the PSX as well, so you could have a much sharper, much more detailed picture.
I was just thinking of situations like this... interesting that there is such significant example.
So what happens if some disgruntled employee releases that code to the public (or someone steals it off there servers like what happened to the Quake source a few years ago)? All the code is covered by the GPL, but HP owns copyright to their modifications. HP and Intel would probably claim trade secret status on information in that code as well. But they can't do squat about it because the GPL prevents them from restricting further distribution of the code.
What a can of worms that would be.
Though The Economist is an excellent and relatively unbiased magazine, the article cited is an EDITORIAL, and is hardly evidence that the Dvorak is in any way inferior. As for the articles cited within the editorial, those that wrote those articles have a strong bias toward discounting *any* example of market failure, and will construct their research accordingly. Visit Liebowitz's webpage to see just what his ideology is. Most of us would agree that bad standards can locked in, because we've seen it happen. But it is hard to demonstrate "better" versus "good enough" to those who have little understanding of the technology in question, or already equate market position as evidence of being "better".
We've already got steenkin bureaucracies, they're called ICANN and Network Solutions. There more distributed the power gets, and the more diverse the interests are with it, the better. So another advocacy group is a good thing.
:P
Just say "whoa" to the status quo.
Is there a Pink Floyd concert going on outside my window?
Hey, I once had a Pink Floyd concert going on outside my window. No, really. Dammit, I'm not joking!
Your examples are a different catagory. Neither of them have any value if they were public property. (Well, your tax information might, but privacy concens limit that, just as national security concerns limit nuclear technology).
:)
Think of tax money as an investment. You expect a return, right? You payed for that government research, you ought to have rights to it.
RMS did AI research, and then started the GNU project on that public funding. I'd say you got back much more than payed for (assuming you were alive and paying taxes at the time). If that's "welfare", we should encourage more people to get on the dole.
If the Open Source people are Stalanists, what does that make the Free Software people? Nazis?
:) And if there were such a thing, how the hell do those buearocrats think they can enforce it?
There's a fundamental point you seem to be missing here. US companies must abide by US law, but those in other countries don't. "Open Source" is a philosophical movement as much as it is a trade name, and is hardly confined to US borders. It is possible for US law to conflict with the Open Source definition, and that does not automatically invalidate the definition.
What I want to know is whether or not that provision in the license is dictated by our laws, or if it is just Apple going to extreme lengths to cover it's butt. It seems absurd that we require all importers of US goods to abide by our trade restrictions. I mean, how do you stop someone from selling bread made from American wheat to redidents in Cuba or Libya? Are there shrink wrap licenses on every bag of Colonial we ship to other countries?
They're so anxious to blame mp3 for music piracy and declining sales, they've completely forgot their old scapegoat: used cd stores. I remember that they tried to get laws passed a few years ago preventing the reselling of CDs.
Of course, they were right about that one though, not that it should have any effect on the legality. I haven't bought a single new CD in over two years because I can find almost anything I want used. I make the decisions to only buy used CDs because of the way the record industry has reacted to MP3, and for the idiotic taxes on recordable media they lobbied for. I get my music legally, and they don't get a dime of my money.
MediaOne in Atlanta at least has Comedy Central, but no SciFi Channel and no Independant Film Channel. And the lazy bastards still haven't deployed cable modem in my area, even though they said it would be done by last November.
Ah, but you don't have to destroy the code, you simply may not redistribute it. Which allows you to modify it yourself to avoid patent restrictions, and take the legal consequences into your own hands.
From the license:
- -
13.6 Severability.
(a) If for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction finds any provision of this License, or portion thereof, to be unenforceable, that provision of the License will be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to effect the economic benefits and intent of the parties, and the remainder of this License will continue in full force and effect.
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if applicable law prohibits or restricts You from fully and/or specifically complying with Sections 2 and/or 3 or prevents the enforceability of either of those Sections, this License will immediately terminate and You must immediately discontinue any use of the Covered Code and destroy all copies of it that are in your possession or control.
-----------------------------------------------
A _court_ must first decide when and where the license is unenforcable (meaning you may have to hire a lawyer to work with code you helped write!), and the second part seems to imply that the entire license can be voided due to any conflict with existing or _future_ laws. You could lose acess of your own code because a local bureuocrat changes the laws.
Screw this. Any developer would be an idiot to work on this software. You're basically working for apple for free. They own the code, and anything you add to it you may lose.