I'm an anarcho-capitalist, and I don't say "Would you have it any other way". I say, instead, "Everything we consume is a result of something we produced."
Tried one in Terminal 10 at JFK. It's teh suck. It functions as described, however, there is no tactile feedback to tell you that 1) your fingers are in the correct place, and 2) that you have hit a key. The audible feedback is delayed be at least 200msec, and so you're still left guessing if you can type faster than 5 keys per second. Blah.
The point is not the nature of the changes that Debian makes. The point is that *Mozilla* needs to control those changes if they want to keep their trademark. If they lose their trademark, then any piece of software can be called "Firefox".
Yet they don't find the need to resort to draconian copyright terms to protect their logos. The same is true of a lot of F/OSS projects. Why not Moz?
You're asking the wrong question. Any answer I supply will be a wrong answer, thus I won't answer it. The right question to ask is "Given that trademark law requires you to control the quality of the goods associated with your trademark, why is Moz the only project which bothers to protect their trademark?"
I would have Debian do what any normal set of people would do: "This pixmap is somebody's trademark. You can't make derived works from it, because that would infringe their trademark. Thus, as long as we are distributing the trademarked product, we will include the trademark copyrighted logo regardless of the permissions." Otherwise Debian is shooting itself in the foot.
Shuzan held out his short staff and said, "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish to call this?"
Well, part of the problem is that Debian wants a license that lets them modify anything that gets shipped, and the copyright license on the FF logo prohibits that... because it's a trademark. That's why they insist it's a copyright problem when in fact it's a trademark problem evinced as a copyright problem.
The quality of the patches doesn't matter. What matters is that Mozilla does not control the quality of the patched version that Debian distributes; thus Debian CANNOT use Mozilla trademarks. Copyright is only a superficial problem; the substantial problem is trademark law, which neither Mozilla nor Debian control, and with which both must live.
Distros should NOT have to wait for approval for patching security bugs.
They don't; they just can't call what they have patched "FireFox".
The logo has a restrictive copyright because it is also a trademark. It's very expensive to get a trademark in every country, but other countries will respect one country's copyright. Thus, you can get some backup protection for your trademark by copyrighting your logo and then using a restrictive copyright.
Debian is brain-damaged on this issue and either needs to change trademark law (oh, and while they're at it, fix patent law), or else cope with copyrighted logos.
A trademark MUST stand for something other than "Well, we started with this but hacked the hell out of it so it's something completely different now." Mozilla is NOT being unreasonable. The other projects which let people misuse their trademarks are risking the loss of enforcibility of their trademark.
Yes, this is an issue that the open source world has not thought very deeply about yet.
Make up some letters out of lead saying "Kip Hawley is an Idiot," Cover them with black epoxy. Put it in the bottom of your luggage so they'll be perpendicular to the X-ray. Enjoy.
Uhhhh, actually, there is a legal doctrine called "reliance". If somebody says "I won't do this even though the law lets me", and you rely on their promise, then they have very little chance of successfully doing it. The judge will throw their case out of court so fast it will go into orbit.
Okay.... then PRT inherits the worst characteristics of cars and trains. PRT doesn't give you a single seat from home to office (until the endgame when PRT extends out into the suburbs). You don't have your own vehicle, so you must bring all your possessions into the PRT AND you must be careful to collect all your possessions when leaving. PRT vehicles travel slowly relative to cars, trains, and RUFs, increasing travel times. PRT stations have to be engineered for the peak load; imagine the PRT station that serves Yankee Stadium. The traffic density is limited by the switch transition time, since potentially every other vehicle might be entering or bypassing a station.
The PRT is only as useful at the extent of its guideways. Without guideways, you can't use a PRT vehicle. A RUF vehicle doesn't need to use guideways. PRT station density must be much higher because everything must be within walking distance.
One point you got wrong: the MaxiRUF is about the size of a big van. The extra load requirement on the guideway isn't that much greater than an equivalent RUF train. Of course, PRTs cannot form trains because of the switching requirement at stations.
No, Palle is aware of the chicken and egg problem. That's why he has the MaxiRUF. Take a project like Atlanta's proposed light rail system. Instead of building light rail, build a RUF and run MaxiRUFs on it. You get a higher level of service because the MaxiRUFs can leave the guideway, plus people can buy a RUF of their own to commute.
I've proposed to him that he also might be able to find a city with high property values reasonably close to an area with cheap land. Build a RUF guideway from there into the city, and include the price of a RUF vehicle in the house. Riding on a RUF is not like riding a train. First, it's single-seat door to door. Second, you are in your own vehicle and can nap or do work without distraction or insecurity. Third, you have broadband Internet.
The RUF is a better system than this. First, because it's dual-mode: you can drive (compatible) cars up onto the guideway. Second, because cars are privately owned (in addition to cars owned by the system operator and run as taxis within the system), the system operator will not have to come up with all the capital needed to run the line.... just the guideway and whatever number of taxis they want to run.
Yeah, I thought the same thing, but, y'know, he was 44 and he's been acting that way since he was a kid, so.... he clearly didn't take stupid chances. Stingrays are usually not fatal. He just happened to get this one right in the heart. Yeah, you knew he was going to get killed by an animal sooner or later, but that's only because that's where he spent all his time. You or I are probably going to get killed by a car.
I have to agree. That's why I moved away from Debian. Too much political bullshit. As the t-shirt I got at OSCON says "Shut the fuck up and write some code." Thanks, Jesse!
You compromise to get the dominant market share; not just 2% more. And the reason you do it is to later demand codecs without royalties. The alternative is to contine to live with software we can't legally run.
Is other people's freedom important to you? Or are you the only one ho appreciates freedom? How long will your freedom survive in a world where freedom is not valued?
OSI's goal has always been to do what is necessary to sell the ideal of freedom to as many eople as possible. The free software movement's goal has always been ideological purity - to the point where rms will not use reflashable embedded systems because in priniple it could be replaced by open source software.
For OSI, freedom for the masses is more important than purity of the elite geeks. If that ever changes, I will resign from the OSI board because we will have become, as you say, irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm an anarcho-capitalist, and I don't say "Would you have it any other way". I say, instead, "Everything we consume is a result of something we produced."
Tried one in Terminal 10 at JFK. It's teh suck. It functions as described, however, there is no tactile feedback to tell you that 1) your fingers are in the correct place, and 2) that you have hit a key. The audible feedback is delayed be at least 200msec, and so you're still left guessing if you can type faster than 5 keys per second. Blah.
The point is not the nature of the changes that Debian makes. The point is that *Mozilla* needs to control those changes if they want to keep their trademark. If they lose their trademark, then any piece of software can be called "Firefox".
Yet they don't find the need to resort to draconian copyright terms to protect their logos. The same is true of a lot of F/OSS projects. Why not Moz?
You're asking the wrong question. Any answer I supply will be a wrong answer, thus I won't answer it. The right question to ask is "Given that trademark law requires you to control the quality of the goods associated with your trademark, why is Moz the only project which bothers to protect their trademark?"
The answer, of course, is damifino.
I would have Debian do what any normal set of people would do: "This pixmap is somebody's trademark. You can't make derived works from it, because that would infringe their trademark. Thus, as long as we are distributing the trademarked product, we will include the trademark copyrighted logo regardless of the permissions." Otherwise Debian is shooting itself in the foot.
Shuzan held out his short staff and said, "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish to call this?"
Well, part of the problem is that Debian wants a license that lets them modify anything that gets shipped, and the copyright license on the FF logo prohibits that ... because it's a trademark. That's why they insist it's a copyright problem when in fact it's a trademark problem evinced as a copyright problem.
The quality of the patches doesn't matter. What matters is that Mozilla does not control the quality of the patched version that Debian distributes; thus Debian CANNOT use Mozilla trademarks. Copyright is only a superficial problem; the substantial problem is trademark law, which neither Mozilla nor Debian control, and with which both must live.
Distros should NOT have to wait for approval for patching security bugs.
They don't; they just can't call what they have patched "FireFox".
The logo has a restrictive copyright because it is also a trademark. It's very expensive to get a trademark in every country, but other countries will respect one country's copyright. Thus, you can get some backup protection for your trademark by copyrighting your logo and then using a restrictive copyright.
Debian is brain-damaged on this issue and either needs to change trademark law (oh, and while they're at it, fix patent law), or else cope with copyrighted logos.
A trademark MUST stand for something other than "Well, we started with this but hacked the hell out of it so it's something completely different now." Mozilla is NOT being unreasonable. The other projects which let people misuse their trademarks are risking the loss of enforcibility of their trademark.
Yes, this is an issue that the open source world has not thought very deeply about yet.
Make up some letters out of lead saying "Kip Hawley is an Idiot," Cover them with black epoxy. Put it in the bottom of your luggage so they'll be perpendicular to the X-ray. Enjoy.
Ha! That's a great story! Can you attribute it to a time, place, and person?
New ~/.signature material! Thanks!
I like the t-shirt that Jesse Vincent was distributing at OSCON. It reads:
"Shut the fuck up and write some code."
Uhhhh, actually, there is a legal doctrine called "reliance". If somebody says "I won't do this even though the law lets me", and you rely on their promise, then they have very little chance of successfully doing it. The judge will throw their case out of court so fast it will go into orbit.
Okay .... then PRT inherits the worst characteristics of cars and trains. PRT doesn't give you a single seat from home to office (until the endgame when PRT extends out into the suburbs). You don't have your own vehicle, so you must bring all your possessions into the PRT AND you must be careful to collect all your possessions when leaving. PRT vehicles travel slowly relative to cars, trains, and RUFs, increasing travel times. PRT stations have to be engineered for the peak load; imagine the PRT station that serves Yankee Stadium. The traffic density is limited by the switch transition time, since potentially every other vehicle might be entering or bypassing a station.
The PRT is only as useful at the extent of its guideways. Without guideways, you can't use a PRT vehicle. A RUF vehicle doesn't need to use guideways. PRT station density must be much higher because everything must be within walking distance.
One point you got wrong: the MaxiRUF is about the size of a big van. The extra load requirement on the guideway isn't that much greater than an equivalent RUF train. Of course, PRTs cannot form trains because of the switching requirement at stations.
Economic modelling is very accurate! It was used to successfully predict 12 of the last five recessions.
-russ
No, Palle is aware of the chicken and egg problem. That's why he has the MaxiRUF. Take a project like Atlanta's proposed light rail system. Instead of building light rail, build a RUF and run MaxiRUFs on it. You get a higher level of service because the MaxiRUFs can leave the guideway, plus people can buy a RUF of their own to commute.
I've proposed to him that he also might be able to find a city with high property values reasonably close to an area with cheap land. Build a RUF guideway from there into the city, and include the price of a RUF vehicle in the house. Riding on a RUF is not like riding a train. First, it's single-seat door to door. Second, you are in your own vehicle and can nap or do work without distraction or insecurity. Third, you have broadband Internet.
The RUF is a better system than this. First, because it's dual-mode: you can drive (compatible) cars up onto the guideway. Second, because cars are privately owned (in addition to cars owned by the system operator and run as taxis within the system), the system operator will not have to come up with all the capital needed to run the line .... just the guideway and whatever number of taxis they want to run.
Yeah, I thought the same thing, but, y'know, he was 44 and he's been acting that way since he was a kid, so .... he clearly didn't take stupid chances. Stingrays are usually not fatal. He just happened to get this one right in the heart. Yeah, you knew he was going to get killed by an animal sooner or later, but that's only because that's where he spent all his time. You or I are probably going to get killed by a car.
I have to agree. That's why I moved away from Debian. Too much political bullshit. As the t-shirt I got at OSCON says "Shut the fuck up and write some code." Thanks, Jesse!
Consumers have a tendency to stay away from confusing markets. Nobody wants to buy something only to find out that they "got ripped off".
Why does Linux have to be popular?
Because everyone deserves to be free.
You compromise to get the dominant market share; not just 2% more. And the reason you do it is to later demand codecs without royalties. The alternative is to contine to live with software we can't legally run.
Is other people's freedom important to you? Or are you the only one ho appreciates freedom? How long will your freedom survive in a world where freedom is not valued?
OSI's goal has always been to do what is necessary to sell the ideal of freedom to as many eople as possible. The free software movement's goal has always been ideological purity - to the point where rms will not use reflashable embedded systems because in priniple it could be replaced by open source software.
For OSI, freedom for the masses is more important than purity of the elite geeks. If that ever changes, I will resign from the OSI board because we will have become, as you say, irrelevant.