Potential profit - profit one *might* gain - is not a right, nor is it even a solid fact, and certainly not an entitlement. Laws should not protect something that *might* be. They should protect (or create) things that *are*.
If I create a piece of artwork, a book, etc... I *should* indeed be able to sell it if I choose to. Additionally, as the creator, I should be able to decide what price I believe to be fair. I am permitted to *attempt* to profit from it.
If the work is not purchased at the price I set, I may have set the price too high, or my work may simply not be good. I am not in any way *entitled* to any profit I did not make. It doesn't matter how much I *might* have made. What matters is how much I did make.
One could argue that if a law is necessary to protect one's "potential profits", that one should instead be examining their business model, pricing, or content, rather than attempting to purchase laws that protect a failing business model/product.
In general, when identifying a place by adding the prefix "North", "South", "Central", "Upper", "Lower", etc... you're saying "As a part of the larger whole, I'm referring to this specific part".
Using this as a base, one could reasonably rationalize that the supercontinent encompassing North and South America should be referred to as "America".
As well, it could be said that our country doesn't really have a name, so much as a description. "The United States of America" can be taken as a very literal description - a nation comprised of a number of smaller states, residing on the supercontinent of "America".
That having been said, most people *anywhere* will know what you're talking about when you refer to either "America" or "The United States", even if neither is particularly non-generic. =)
The major difference I can see is that I don't tend to stay in any one position for very long. I'll move the keyboard a bit, lean back in my chair, put the keyboard on my knees, etc... My guess is that this prevents any sort of major RSI from taking root. Even though my fingers are still hitting the keys, my arms/neck/back are in a differnet position.
In fact, I'd say thge shareware model largely fizzled out because of the freeloaders who weren't willing to pay for a product they obviously wanted.
So, let's say I download shareware program "X", which has a 30 day trial, after which I'm asked to pay $30 or stop using it. I use it for 30 days. Then:
a) I stop using it because I don't believe the price they're asking is fair, given my 30 day experience with the program. I proceed to look for other options.
b) I stop using the program, because within that 30 days I found a free/OSS program that does 90% of what "X" does, for free, and will serve my needs.
c) I stop using it, because I already have a better program. I used the 30 day trial to compare/contrast the two and make an informed decision.
In which of the above circumstances have I "freeloaded"? In which of the above circumstances have I cheated the author of the software? None.
No, they forked the codebase, and *have* contributed their changes back, just not in the most usable form to the KHTML dev folks.
Since they work under a different GUI (Aqua vs. X11), and haven't kept their line strictly in sync with the KHTML mainline code (which has itsel evolved), the changes they've made don't translate directly to the KHTML code anymore, so the changes themselves are of questionable use to the KHTML folks.
Additionally, Apple doesn't allow the KHTML folks access to their VC system (Perforce?), so some of the comments on changes (like: Fixes bug 12345) don't have any context. But, nowhere in the GPL does it say that they must allow this sort of access.
Now, that's not to say Apple couldn't be better about the way it contributes the changes back... They could supply a bug listing that explains what each bugfix refers to, without necessarily exposing their entire VC system to the KHTML folks (as they most likely have stuff in there the KHTML folks wouldn't be privvy to).
Something like:
"Bug 12345: In nested DIVs, color doesn't display correctly"...would at least give some context to the comments in their code.
It wouldn't help the main problem, though, which is that the codebase has essentially forked, and the changes don't necessarily match up anymore. That's noone's fault per se - neither side did anything "wrong" to make that happen. Apple went their way and added/fixed stuff. KHTML went it's way and added/fixed stuff. The two don't necessarily match anymore - and further aren't using the same GUI layer, so any GUI-specific stuff (which I'd imagine there's a lot of) would necessarily not mesh well.
what is the difference between distributing altered works, and distributing software that when used to alter the unaltered works the same way for everyone?
The difference is rather hard to explain, but should be relatively easy to grasp.
Let's say you have a painting. It's hanging on the wall. I can go and take a picture of the painting, bring it into Photoshop, and drop a red filter over the top of it. I'd probably be in a lot of trouble if I tried to display/sell a printed copy of that painting, though. (I'm not sure how much needs to be done for a derivative work to be "legal", but I'd guess dropping a filter over it isn't enough;P )
Now, alternatively, I could sell red sunglasses to folks, or perhaps put a bunch of them in a bucket near the painting. People looking at the painting through the sunglasses would see the same thing - your painting overlaid with red - but the sunglasses themselves aren't a derivative work. They're just red sunglasses.
I suppose Greasemonkey is a little bit different than that, in that it can be targetted to specifically change just website X. But I think the analogy holds (or at least that's as close as I can get).
I have to agree here. The only problem I ever had with Debian/Unstable seriously breaking stuff was when there was a perl transition that seriously b0rked up the works for about a week. That was only once, and was a couple years ago.
The big strength of PDF (from where I sit) is that it produces a document which can be cleanly and easily *printed*, with consistant results, on most any platform.
For something meant to be viewed on-screen, it's really no better for the end-user than HTML, but still infinitely better than Word (Why doesn't this look right? Don't have the same version of Word? The right fonts installed? etc...)
Of course, 90% of Word docs passed around here at my workplace wouldn't lose anything if they were just plaintext - but the suits don't want to hear that...they want to compose their email in $^@% Word...
HP's drivers work no better on a 2x2Ghz G5. It's apalling.
So much so that I replaced my HP with a Canon. It just installs the driver, and gets out of your way. No huge clunky apps clogging up the works. Night and day.
Nikon has both property and moral rights over their software.
But...do those "property and moral rights" extend to the photos that are taken by the person using the software? Does Nikon "own" the white-balance information of the picture taken by the photographer?
If so, Nikon is basically saying "Buy our camera and use it, but you don't own your pictures".
It'd be like (in film camera terms) buying Kodak film, taking pictures, an then Kodak telling you that you don't own the negative.
You make good points, but I fear that they'll be lost on most due to the vitrol of your post, dismissed as nothing but a useless troll.
PDF is a darned good format for distributing material which is expected to be printed. I don't think many folks will argue with that. It sucks, however, if you want to do anything more than print.
As you said, if you're only looking to disseminate information - your 50 page document which needs public availability now - you could do much worse than PDF. Especially if your only HTML option is Word "HTML".
However, you'd be shortsighted if you didn't look beyond simple dissemination. Obviously if you're looking to get people to read your PDF-based document, it must have what you (or your superiors) feel is important information.
The form of that information is what's important when it comes to the output format. If it's text-based information, you're probably OK just with the PDF. If it's tabular data, especially numeric tabular data, there are more useful formats (csv, various spreadsheet formats, etc...) that can allow the end-user of your information to slice/dice the data in ways you may not have thought of.
As for Flash, I think the main reason there's such enmity towards it is that the format has been abused. In most cases, it's being used for ads. Ads aren't inherantly bad in and of themselves, but their placement and content can be incredibly distracting from the content of the page being viewed.
Flash has been (ab)used to make wildly-scrolling attention-grabbing ads that not only distract you from the content, but in many cases bombard you with sound as well, and/or worse...popups. That's annoying, especially when you're trying to get work done.
Many marketing folks declare an annoyed, distracted information seeker a "win". However...I'd think a company wanting to advertize their product would not like their potential customers to be annoyed. I'm not a marketeer, though, so maybe I just don't see the benefit in pissing off potential customers.
Flash has also been used for some really cool stuff - Flickr for one example. Amazing stuff, but definitely not the norm when one thinks of Flash.
I don't think he'd be violating the NDA by disclosing the build number he's running.
Describing new/changed features, providing screenshots, etc... would definitely violate it (so long as he went beyond what's already publically available - Safari RSS is no secret;P ), but I'd wager that "I'm running build X currently, and they're reporting build X+1 is final" doesn't really give any information that isn't available from other sources.
This is of course assuming he's an ADC member (I am...). If he's acquired the thing by other, more nefarious means, all bets are off.
Hmm...so in theory anyway, the real culprit is the pressure built up inside it. Find a way to release that pressure (slowly, but at a higher rate than it's building up), and you fix the problem.
Kinda like partially opening a shaken can of soda, or a bottle of champagne - just enough to allow some of the gas to escape, but not enough to allow it to spray. If you release the pressure against, say, a turbine, you might even be able to salvage some energy out of the deal as well.
After the pressure is released (over the course of days/weeks/months/years/whatever), it should be relatively safe to "uncork the bottle".
Indeed. I didn't comment on it's legality, only that Copyright Infringement and Theft are two completely different things, and should be treated as such.
Actually copying without paying (theft) is not a right. It says so right there in the US Code and does not mention anything about copying in the Constitution.
Um...no.
Theft is when I take something from you, in such a way as to incur loss. For example, if I take your wallet, you no longer have it. You have experienced loss, thus taking your wallet is theft.
Copyright Infringement is very different. If I download a copy of a song, album, movie, or piece of software, the original is still there, and still in the hands of the person who "owns" it. They have experienced no loss. They still have everything they had before I downloaded anything. Therefore it's not theft. The person making the download available has, however, infringed the author's copyright, if this was done without permission.
I'm sorry, but you're plain wrong. Do you really think that my mom is really going to go through the trouble of downloading a text file (which does not end in.txt)
Plaintext files don't (and shouldn't!) need to end in a 3-character file extention that only *really* means anything on Windows (and which is really a holdover to the DOS days). Hek, even MS wants people to forget about file extentions - they turn them off by default!
Mime types are really the way to go, IMHO.
opening it, using a tool that generates an MD5 signature (and that does not come standard on Windows)
So, because it doesn't come with Windows, it can't be a good thing, or the right thing to do?
and comparing strings of 32 characters? And that assumes my mom would know what an MD5 is, which she does not.
Well, she should.
I think you're focusing on the wrong things here. You should be focusing on education. People are starting to realize that the 'net isn't a safe place, and spiels like this MS shill is giving prey on the fear that the "bad guys" are trying to "get you", and use that fear to sell people on their idea of what's "safer" (and that so obvously in MS' view can't be anything that the OSS community likes...)
Instead of bleating about how Mom can't verify MD5 signatures (but somehow can understand the intracies of code signing?), you should be trying to figure out HOW to make dear old Mom *able* to verify MD5 signatures. (Mom didn't know much about mp3s until Napster (the original) came around. Napster was so easy to use, Mom could "get it". So what's really needed is probably a dirt-simple MD5 app, and a standard way of distributing MD5 signatures, so that the app can get them automatically)
Or, if you can't do that, maybe thinking about how to explain MD5 signatures to folks in a way they'll understand.
Not good at coding or explaining? Donate some money to someone who is. The world hasn't ever been changed by those who whine and complain. It's changed by those who actually go and do something about the REASON they're whining and complaining.
Actually, IIRC it's mbox, which pretty much any *nix mailer will read =)
There's basically two files for each one (at least in my local mailstore), an mbox file, and a.msf file (which I'm assuming is some sort of index, but since it's a seperate file, it's inconsequential to getting hte actual mail in the mbox files into another app)
Slashdot Mirror
Potential profit - profit one *might* gain - is not a right, nor is it even a solid fact, and certainly not an entitlement. Laws should not protect something that *might* be. They should protect (or create) things that *are*.
If I create a piece of artwork, a book, etc... I *should* indeed be able to sell it if I choose to. Additionally, as the creator, I should be able to decide what price I believe to be fair. I am permitted to *attempt* to profit from it.
If the work is not purchased at the price I set, I may have set the price too high, or my work may simply not be good. I am not in any way *entitled* to any profit I did not make. It doesn't matter how much I *might* have made. What matters is how much I did make.
One could argue that if a law is necessary to protect one's "potential profits", that one should instead be examining their business model, pricing, or content, rather than attempting to purchase laws that protect a failing business model/product.
The Smurfs - a Tim Burton film
My god...I thought I was the only one who remembered Mighty Orbots...
Such a complete non-sense of scale...one minute the "chest" robot is nearly human-sized, the next a hovercar is driving into his chest...
In general, when identifying a place by adding the prefix "North", "South", "Central", "Upper", "Lower", etc... you're saying "As a part of the larger whole, I'm referring to this specific part".
Using this as a base, one could reasonably rationalize that the supercontinent encompassing North and South America should be referred to as "America".
As well, it could be said that our country doesn't really have a name, so much as a description. "The United States of America" can be taken as a very literal description - a nation comprised of a number of smaller states, residing on the supercontinent of "America".
That having been said, most people *anywhere* will know what you're talking about when you refer to either "America" or "The United States", even if neither is particularly non-generic. =)
I'll hold out for the Super Turbo Hiper Type-R Modular Blue Line EX+ Alpha 3, myself.
Nor have I, but I have friends who do.
The major difference I can see is that I don't tend to stay in any one position for very long. I'll move the keyboard a bit, lean back in my chair, put the keyboard on my knees, etc... My guess is that this prevents any sort of major RSI from taking root. Even though my fingers are still hitting the keys, my arms/neck/back are in a differnet position.
What programs are you using that are difficult/impossible to run as a non-privlidged user?
Games are the big culprit - anything that requires direct hardware access is going to want admin privs under Windows.
I wouldn't be suprised if highend 3d packages (Max, Maya, etc...) are the same way.
In fact, I'd say thge shareware model largely fizzled out because of the freeloaders who weren't willing to pay for a product they obviously wanted.
So, let's say I download shareware program "X", which has a 30 day trial, after which I'm asked to pay $30 or stop using it. I use it for 30 days. Then:
a) I stop using it because I don't believe the price they're asking is fair, given my 30 day experience with the program. I proceed to look for other options.
b) I stop using the program, because within that 30 days I found a free/OSS program that does 90% of what "X" does, for free, and will serve my needs.
c) I stop using it, because I already have a better program. I used the 30 day trial to compare/contrast the two and make an informed decision.
In which of the above circumstances have I "freeloaded"? In which of the above circumstances have I cheated the author of the software? None.
No, they forked the codebase, and *have* contributed their changes back, just not in the most usable form to the KHTML dev folks.
...would at least give some context to the comments in their code.
Since they work under a different GUI (Aqua vs. X11), and haven't kept their line strictly in sync with the KHTML mainline code (which has itsel evolved), the changes they've made don't translate directly to the KHTML code anymore, so the changes themselves are of questionable use to the KHTML folks.
Additionally, Apple doesn't allow the KHTML folks access to their VC system (Perforce?), so some of the comments on changes (like: Fixes bug 12345) don't have any context. But, nowhere in the GPL does it say that they must allow this sort of access.
Now, that's not to say Apple couldn't be better about the way it contributes the changes back... They could supply a bug listing that explains what each bugfix refers to, without necessarily exposing their entire VC system to the KHTML folks (as they most likely have stuff in there the KHTML folks wouldn't be privvy to).
Something like:
"Bug 12345: In nested DIVs, color doesn't display correctly"
It wouldn't help the main problem, though, which is that the codebase has essentially forked, and the changes don't necessarily match up anymore. That's noone's fault per se - neither side did anything "wrong" to make that happen. Apple went their way and added/fixed stuff. KHTML went it's way and added/fixed stuff. The two don't necessarily match anymore - and further aren't using the same GUI layer, so any GUI-specific stuff (which I'd imagine there's a lot of) would necessarily not mesh well.
what is the difference between distributing altered works, and distributing software that when used to alter the unaltered works the same way for everyone?
;P )
The difference is rather hard to explain, but should be relatively easy to grasp.
Let's say you have a painting. It's hanging on the wall. I can go and take a picture of the painting, bring it into Photoshop, and drop a red filter over the top of it. I'd probably be in a lot of trouble if I tried to display/sell a printed copy of that painting, though. (I'm not sure how much needs to be done for a derivative work to be "legal", but I'd guess dropping a filter over it isn't enough
Now, alternatively, I could sell red sunglasses to folks, or perhaps put a bunch of them in a bucket near the painting. People looking at the painting through the sunglasses would see the same thing - your painting overlaid with red - but the sunglasses themselves aren't a derivative work. They're just red sunglasses.
I suppose Greasemonkey is a little bit different than that, in that it can be targetted to specifically change just website X. But I think the analogy holds (or at least that's as close as I can get).
I have to agree here. The only problem I ever had with Debian/Unstable seriously breaking stuff was when there was a perl transition that seriously b0rked up the works for about a week. That was only once, and was a couple years ago.
Repeat after me: PDF is an output format.
The big strength of PDF (from where I sit) is that it produces a document which can be cleanly and easily *printed*, with consistant results, on most any platform.
For something meant to be viewed on-screen, it's really no better for the end-user than HTML, but still infinitely better than Word (Why doesn't this look right? Don't have the same version of Word? The right fonts installed? etc...)
Of course, 90% of Word docs passed around here at my workplace wouldn't lose anything if they were just plaintext - but the suits don't want to hear that...they want to compose their email in $^@% Word...
HP's drivers work no better on a 2x2Ghz G5. It's apalling.
So much so that I replaced my HP with a Canon. It just installs the driver, and gets out of your way. No huge clunky apps clogging up the works. Night and day.
Grass Clippings? You pampered clod! We're too poor to have Clippings...we have to GNAW the grass off the ground ourselves!
;P
Sheesh...you people expect *everything* to be done for you, even clipping the grass...
Nikon has both property and moral rights over their software.
But...do those "property and moral rights" extend to the photos that are taken by the person using the software? Does Nikon "own" the white-balance information of the picture taken by the photographer?
If so, Nikon is basically saying "Buy our camera and use it, but you don't own your pictures".
It'd be like (in film camera terms) buying Kodak film, taking pictures, an then Kodak telling you that you don't own the negative.
You make good points, but I fear that they'll be lost on most due to the vitrol of your post, dismissed as nothing but a useless troll.
PDF is a darned good format for distributing material which is expected to be printed. I don't think many folks will argue with that. It sucks, however, if you want to do anything more than print.
As you said, if you're only looking to disseminate information - your 50 page document which needs public availability now - you could do much worse than PDF. Especially if your only HTML option is Word "HTML".
However, you'd be shortsighted if you didn't look beyond simple dissemination. Obviously if you're looking to get people to read your PDF-based document, it must have what you (or your superiors) feel is important information.
The form of that information is what's important when it comes to the output format. If it's text-based information, you're probably OK just with the PDF. If it's tabular data, especially numeric tabular data, there are more useful formats (csv, various spreadsheet formats, etc...) that can allow the end-user of your information to slice/dice the data in ways you may not have thought of.
As for Flash, I think the main reason there's such enmity towards it is that the format has been abused. In most cases, it's being used for ads. Ads aren't inherantly bad in and of themselves, but their placement and content can be incredibly distracting from the content of the page being viewed.
Flash has been (ab)used to make wildly-scrolling attention-grabbing ads that not only distract you from the content, but in many cases bombard you with sound as well, and/or worse...popups. That's annoying, especially when you're trying to get work done.
Many marketing folks declare an annoyed, distracted information seeker a "win". However...I'd think a company wanting to advertize their product would not like their potential customers to be annoyed. I'm not a marketeer, though, so maybe I just don't see the benefit in pissing off potential customers.
Flash has also been used for some really cool stuff - Flickr for one example. Amazing stuff, but definitely not the norm when one thinks of Flash.
You want fries with that?
I don't think he'd be violating the NDA by disclosing the build number he's running.
;P ), but I'd wager that "I'm running build X currently, and they're reporting build X+1 is final" doesn't really give any information that isn't available from other sources.
Describing new/changed features, providing screenshots, etc... would definitely violate it (so long as he went beyond what's already publically available - Safari RSS is no secret
This is of course assuming he's an ADC member (I am...). If he's acquired the thing by other, more nefarious means, all bets are off.
The one you attach to it for the sole purpose of enabling ssh access =)
Mmm...pepperoni/pineapple pizza...
Food of the gods, that.
Hmm...so in theory anyway, the real culprit is the pressure built up inside it. Find a way to release that pressure (slowly, but at a higher rate than it's building up), and you fix the problem.
Kinda like partially opening a shaken can of soda, or a bottle of champagne - just enough to allow some of the gas to escape, but not enough to allow it to spray. If you release the pressure against, say, a turbine, you might even be able to salvage some energy out of the deal as well.
After the pressure is released (over the course of days/weeks/months/years/whatever), it should be relatively safe to "uncork the bottle".
Indeed. I didn't comment on it's legality, only that Copyright Infringement and Theft are two completely different things, and should be treated as such.
Actually copying without paying (theft) is not a right. It says so right there in the US Code and does not mention anything about copying in the Constitution.
Um...no.
Theft is when I take something from you, in such a way as to incur loss. For example, if I take your wallet, you no longer have it. You have experienced loss, thus taking your wallet is theft.
Copyright Infringement is very different. If I download a copy of a song, album, movie, or piece of software, the original is still there, and still in the hands of the person who "owns" it. They have experienced no loss. They still have everything they had before I downloaded anything. Therefore it's not theft. The person making the download available has, however, infringed the author's copyright, if this was done without permission.
I'm sorry, but you're plain wrong. Do you really think that my mom is really going to go through the trouble of downloading a text file (which does not end in .txt)
Plaintext files don't (and shouldn't!) need to end in a 3-character file extention that only *really* means anything on Windows (and which is really a holdover to the DOS days). Hek, even MS wants people to forget about file extentions - they turn them off by default!
Mime types are really the way to go, IMHO.
opening it, using a tool that generates an MD5 signature (and that does not come standard on Windows)
So, because it doesn't come with Windows, it can't be a good thing, or the right thing to do?
and comparing strings of 32 characters? And that assumes my mom would know what an MD5 is, which she does not.
Well, she should.
I think you're focusing on the wrong things here. You should be focusing on education. People are starting to realize that the 'net isn't a safe place, and spiels like this MS shill is giving prey on the fear that the "bad guys" are trying to "get you", and use that fear to sell people on their idea of what's "safer" (and that so obvously in MS' view can't be anything that the OSS community likes...)
Instead of bleating about how Mom can't verify MD5 signatures (but somehow can understand the intracies of code signing?), you should be trying to figure out HOW to make dear old Mom *able* to verify MD5 signatures. (Mom didn't know much about mp3s until Napster (the original) came around. Napster was so easy to use, Mom could "get it". So what's really needed is probably a dirt-simple MD5 app, and a standard way of distributing MD5 signatures, so that the app can get them automatically)
Or, if you can't do that, maybe thinking about how to explain MD5 signatures to folks in a way they'll understand.
Not good at coding or explaining? Donate some money to someone who is. The world hasn't ever been changed by those who whine and complain. It's changed by those who actually go and do something about the REASON they're whining and complaining.
Actually, IIRC it's mbox, which pretty much any *nix mailer will read =)
.msf file (which I'm assuming is some sort of index, but since it's a seperate file, it's inconsequential to getting hte actual mail in the mbox files into another app)
There's basically two files for each one (at least in my local mailstore), an mbox file, and a