No, actually, I didn't mean that.... interesting...
What I was noticing was a highly nationalistic government with lots of protectionism, and a growth of goverment involvement in soft-paternalism of people's lives, aka socialism...
Since when was america a capitalist country??? All I see now is a huge shift to National Socialism with the increased presence of government granted monopolies.
Back in 1986 I wrote the Pro MIDI Player which was a live performance oriented MIDI sequencer. It allowed you to control the sequence in a live sort of way. I originally wrote it because my band was performing at Expo '86 in Vancouver and we needed some parts sequenced but wanted to be able to repeat parts at our whim during the song. It also controlled lights and flashpots via the parallel port via midi messages in the sequence!
But I'm not talking about just copywritten music, I'm talking about encrypted, DRM-encumbered compositions of my own which they are not allowed to listen to without violating the DMCA via breaking the encryption or by extracting the key from me.
Is the RIAA allowed to ignore the DMCA when THEY copy something?
So if I had music that I wrote and copyrighted on my own computer hard disk, they then are allowed to copy my music during this process without paying me compensation?
Since microsoft and others have closed sources, they very may well have violated the GPL by utilizing GPL'd source code in their closed source offering. It doesn't matter if it was on purpose or if it was done inadvertently.
If they have violated the GPL, then they are in violation of the copyright laws and "Intellectual Property" of the copyright holders in question. How would this copyright violation affect Microsoft customers?
Imagine if MSVCRT.DLL or some other 'redistributable' microsoft DLL was found to be in violation of the GPL! Then every company who distributes their application with these GPL'd DLL's would be required to either stop distribution their applications or license their applications under the GPL as well.
So, how can Microsoft prove to the world the their redistributable DLL's do not contain stolen GPL'd code?
Perhaps the FSF can start charging 'protection money' to third party developers that utilize these potentially violating DLL's?
No, I read it correctly. His comment accepts the fallacy and incorrect assumption that security and privacy are mutually exclusive things. They are not.
He specifically said he is willing to give up some security for more privacy.
Without these laws in place you can have more security AND privacy.
Show me a HDDVD or Blu-Ray disk that has a worthwhile movie on it!
It is no loss to me if my new laptop does not play them. I'd rather use my laptop for content creation not consumption. And I'd rather my laptop not hinder my own content creation abilities.
I for one will take a decrease in national security if it means that my privacy remains intact.
You are believing the fallacy. These laws do not increase security. The government and police already have all the tools that they need. These new laws will do one thing - They will decrease my security as well as my privacy.
After the fiasco of the U.S.'s Canadian softwood lumber tax where the WTO ruled against the U.S. something like 5 times, I learned that the U.S. only follows WTO rulings when it suits them...
And at that point, Microsoft's AppleSoft had hires graphics and integer basic did not. So AppleSoft had prior art, at least with regards to this.
One could always use pokes to change mode and fill memory, and the applevision program worked by poking a 6502 program into memory which performed the animation and music...
Slashdot Mirror
correct, it was wrong. sorry.
jeffk
Sorry for the confusion. here is the original story, where the problem with public domain appears.
--jeffk++
Do you understand why Richard Stallman even started the GPL? He wrote a program, published the source code as public domain.
Another company took it out of the public domain and copyrighted it for themselves, and then told Richard that he was violating THEIR copyright.
This is the reasons of the restrictions in the GPL.
So tell me, has the public domain changed?
--jeffk++
No, actually, I didn't mean that.... interesting...
What I was noticing was a highly nationalistic government with lots of protectionism, and a growth of goverment involvement in soft-paternalism of people's lives, aka socialism...
Therefore "National Socialism"....
--jeffk++
Since when was america a capitalist country??? All I see now is a huge shift to National Socialism with the increased presence of government granted monopolies.
--jeffk++
You may want to use my GPL'd MIDI Library in it: http://opensource.jdkoftinoff.com/jdks/trac/browse r/trunk/libjdkmidi
--jeffk++
It turned into a product for a while. The old atari-st 'typeset' manual is at: http://www.jdkoftinoff.com/main/Historic_Projects/ The_Pro_MIDI_Player/Documentation and the source code is now GPL'd and available at http://www.jdkoftinoff.com/main/Historic_Projects/ The_Pro_MIDI_Player/Source_Code/
I've always wanted to rewrite this for a newer platform but found the market and the music scenes lacking.
--jeffk++
"The Supreme Court of the United States will hear a landmark patent case involving whether or not thoughts and relationships are patentable.
--jeffk++
Now where is the profit in that idea?
--jeffk++
Relearning? Most people I know who demand Microsoft Office do not even use or understand styles!! They would be better off with Wordpad!!
--jeffk++
until free software becomes illegal... Watch out for any upcoming "Intellectual Property Reform"
--jeffk++
But I'm not talking about just copywritten music, I'm talking about encrypted, DRM-encumbered compositions of my own which they are not allowed to listen to without violating the DMCA via breaking the encryption or by extracting the key from me.
Is the RIAA allowed to ignore the DMCA when THEY copy something?
--jeffk++
But they are not allowed to have a single copy my compositions without paying me!
And what if the files that my own compositions are in had DRM on them? Would they have to violate the DMCA in order to listen to them?
--jeffk++
Nominative determinism?
--jeffk++
So if I had music that I wrote and copyrighted on my own computer hard disk, they then are allowed to copy my music during this process without paying me compensation?
--jeffk++
This is a fantastic idea!!
Since microsoft and others have closed sources, they very may well have violated the GPL by utilizing GPL'd source code in their closed source offering. It doesn't matter if it was on purpose or if it was done inadvertently.
If they have violated the GPL, then they are in violation of the copyright laws and "Intellectual Property" of the copyright holders in question. How would this copyright violation affect Microsoft customers?
Imagine if MSVCRT.DLL or some other 'redistributable' microsoft DLL was found to be in violation of the GPL! Then every company who distributes their application with these GPL'd DLL's would be required to either stop distribution their applications or license their applications under the GPL as well.
So, how can Microsoft prove to the world the their redistributable DLL's do not contain stolen GPL'd code?
Perhaps the FSF can start charging 'protection money' to third party developers that utilize these potentially violating DLL's?
--jeffk++
How many men get raped by men in jail?
How many boys get raped by men?
How many males are abused and get no support except laughter?
--jeffk++
And how do we know that he is the one and only who did hack it? Or is it just someone who said he did?
--jeffk++
Perhaps they would have the cops come and drag him out of school?
--jeffk++
No, I read it correctly. His comment accepts the fallacy and incorrect assumption that security and privacy are mutually exclusive things. They are not.
He specifically said he is willing to give up some security for more privacy.
Without these laws in place you can have more security AND privacy.
--jeffk++
Show me a HDDVD or Blu-Ray disk that has a worthwhile movie on it!
It is no loss to me if my new laptop does not play them. I'd rather use my laptop for content creation not consumption. And I'd rather my laptop not hinder my own content creation abilities.
--jeffk++
You are believing the fallacy. These laws do not increase security. The government and police already have all the tools that they need. These new laws will do one thing - They will decrease my security as well as my privacy.
--jeffk++
Canada may have appealed against a WTO ruling, but Canada has always abided by the WTO's final decision.
--jeffk++
After the fiasco of the U.S.'s Canadian softwood lumber tax where the WTO ruled against the U.S. something like 5 times, I learned that the U.S. only follows WTO rulings when it suits them...
--jeffk++
And at that point, Microsoft's AppleSoft had hires graphics and integer basic did not. So AppleSoft had prior art, at least with regards to this.
One could always use pokes to change mode and fill memory, and the applevision program worked by poking a 6502 program into memory which performed the animation and music...
--jeffk++