That part was a quote from the parent I was replying to.
""Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:"... followed by a 10 point list of compliance criteria."
Yup, I agree, So the MS offering is not open source in my book. Even though I prefer to speak in terms of Free Software and not in terms of Open Source Software.
So, open source is much more than just "open source = source code is made available". Do we agree? I think we do and you missed the fact that I was quoting something to disagree with it.
"Property tax is the most onerous of all taxes. You don't pay income tax unless you make money, you don't pay sales tax unless you have money to spend, but if you don't have money for property tax you can lose* your home."
In my country, we don't pay property tax on unimproved land, only on improved land / property. I kind of like that setup myself. I have often thought of buying some out of the way acreage in the US wilderness, but the idea of paying property tax on land that I just want to sit on for a possible rainy day is not appealing. I hear talk of being able to put a few cows on the land or some other tricks to get out of the tax, but my brain does not want to deal with the games.
"Simple: The creator/owner sets a price for the intellectual property, and is taxed based on that price. If they want to change the price, they have to back-date taxes for 3 years. If a person wants to buy the intellectual property, it must be up for grabs for a certain multiple of the price the creator sets."
Bingo!
Can I get your comments on refinements to this idea here:
"How do you appraise the value of a copyrighted work?"
Let the copyright holder set the value and build in some checks to keep them honest. Give works with Free licenses a pass on the tax, consider the license they give to the public to be their contribution to the public good instead of the tax.
"While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas."
And from the second:
"While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas."
That is about calling "Free Software" "Open Source Software" and why they think that is not the right thing to do. It is not about them being different things license wise.
"The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are like two political camps within the free software community."
"The relationship between the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement is just the opposite of that picture. We disagree on the basic principles, but agree more or less on the practical recommendations."
The FSF will not likely be recommending any software with a license that fits the definition of open source that you gave without fitting the definition of the OSI definition any time soon.
"BY-SA licensing would offer them very little as no one would need to pay extra for commercial licenses."
Sure they would. Everyone who wanted to use the work in some way and not put BY-SA on the resulting work would need to pay. Jamendo lets you use BY-SA.
"You question whether this is a sustainable business model for the rest of the artists, since you postulate that this is a one time reaction to a novel idea."
We are looking for ways to earn some money from our music now. I just re-looked at Sellaband yesterday. The thing is, from what I can tell, we can't do business with them as we want our work to be licensed CC BY-SA and they do not offer us that option. I will probably be contacting them directly to make sure though. Magnatune seems to suffer from the same problem. Jamendo looks like they may work for us.
Because they should be made whole and not enriched perhaps?
Perhaps set aside the punitive part for their continuing the action all the way to the conclusion and then after that, elsewhere. And let them collect their legal fees if that is already in your system. I see pluses and minuses to doing things that way. If I have it right, we don't allow that here, each party pays their own costs.
"You say the award should not go to the plaintiff, but don't even give a single reason why."
The reason why is contained in the statement in the post I responded to.
The point is made that punitive damages are in place to punish an entity enough so they think twice before they do it again. They have nothing to do with the damage suffered by the other party. You can punish the one party without giving what amounts to a lottery winning to the other party. Make the other party whole. Give the punitive part to some other good cause. Say others who have suffered in a similar way? As a last resort just to the public coffers that match the court.
I am not saying to get rid of the punitive damages in case you are wondering.
"That is not why. Most countries that do not have punitive damage allowances in their laws are usually run by tyrants anyways. The idea of of punitive damages is to punish an entity enough so they think twice before they do it again, it's a civil punishment for a civil case where a criminal punishment should be enacted but cannot be for whatever reason."
Well, if that is the case, the punitive part of the award should not go to the plaintiff.
"But that's just it. Federal law says that the US Government cannot claim copyright on anything it creates"
Where did this come from? But since you bring it up.
Federal law can change and make everything it creates copyleft instead of public domain.
Or, federally created documents can be marked as public domain and solve the problem that way.
Automatic copyleft instead of automatic copyrights is a nice compromise. You can simply avoid the automatic provisions by putting whatever proper copyright notice you like on your work. But all those works with no notice are suddenly not totally off limits to people wanting to make creative and productive use of them.
"This would be really bad as well. Copyleft isn't something unique. There are many copyleft licenses, most of which incompatible with each other...."
I am sure we could make a stab at solving the problem you bring up...
If copyright can be defined in law, so can copyleft. Then, make the automatic copyleft a generic one which can go into any valid copyleft licensed works and at that point the derivatives would take on the specifics of the license used by the person making the derivative.
Don't forget, this is only for unmarked works, not unregistered ones. So, if you want your copyright or a specific copyleft from the break, mark the work as copyright and put any license on it you wish to.
"What would be more fair is just stating that everything is copyrighted by default (like it is now), but after 10-20 years, you need to either register the copyright (for a small fee) or else you lose it.
I don't agree, if you can't be bothered to put a copyright notice on your work... etc.
"It seems to me that unless you take a somewhat relaxed stance toward personal property, you have to recognize that expiration of copyright prior to exhaustion of value takes something from the author."
Sure, but you are only taking a part of what you gave him in the first place. Not that you gave him the work, but you gave him the copyright.
"It sounds great in theory. In practice, however, it would be untenable. Linus would never be able to afford the property taxes on Linux, and as a result Microsoft with its billions in cash reserves would be able to buy it for a steal (unless of course Linus let it into the public domain, a decision I'm not even sure he could make.)"
Not a real problem, give an exception to any work put under a Free Copyleft license.
Slashdot Mirror
"Dude, /dev/random is so much better when you crank it."
Especially if you amp goes to 11.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
I would appreciate you input in any case if you would be so kind.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
"open source = source code is made available"
... followed by a 10 point list of compliance criteria."
That part was a quote from the parent I was replying to.
""Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:"
Yup, I agree, So the MS offering is not open source in my book. Even though I prefer to speak in terms of Free Software and not in terms of Open Source Software.
So, open source is much more than just "open source = source code is made available". Do we agree? I think we do and you missed the fact that I was quoting something to disagree with it.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
"Property tax is the most onerous of all taxes. You don't pay income tax unless you make money, you don't pay sales tax unless you have money to spend, but if you don't have money for property tax you can lose* your home."
In my country, we don't pay property tax on unimproved land, only on improved land / property. I kind of like that setup myself. I have often thought of buying some out of the way acreage in the US wilderness, but the idea of paying property tax on land that I just want to sit on for a possible rainy day is not appealing. I hear talk of being able to put a few cows on the land or some other tricks to get out of the tax, but my brain does not want to deal with the games.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
"Simple: The creator/owner sets a price for the intellectual property, and is taxed based on that price. If they want to change the price, they have to back-date taxes for 3 years. If a person wants to buy the intellectual property, it must be up for grabs for a certain multiple of the price the creator sets."
Bingo!
Can I get your comments on refinements to this idea here:
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts-on-copyright-offensive.html
all the best,
drew
"How do you appraise the value of a copyrighted work?"
Let the copyright holder set the value and build in some checks to keep them honest. Give works with Free licenses a pass on the tax, consider the license they give to the public to be their contribution to the public good instead of the tax.
See: http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts-on-copyright-offensive.html
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
From the first link:
"While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas."
And from the second:
"While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas."
That is about calling "Free Software" "Open Source Software" and why they think that is not the right thing to do. It is not about them being different things license wise.
"The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are like two political camps within the free software community."
"The relationship between the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement is just the opposite of that picture. We disagree on the basic principles, but agree more or less on the practical recommendations."
The FSF will not likely be recommending any software with a license that fits the definition of open source that you gave without fitting the definition of the OSI definition any time soon.
This is the OSI definition of Open Source:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
The is the FSF's definition of Free Software;
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html
Compare if you will. You will see why the FSF can work with the OSI camps in practical ways.
all the best,
drew
"open source = source code is made available"
http://www.opensource.org/
They may have coinded tghe term, they certainly promoted it and made it polular. They disagree.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
"BY-SA licensing would offer them very little as no one would need to pay extra for commercial licenses."
Sure they would. Everyone who wanted to use the work in some way and not put BY-SA on the resulting work would need to pay. Jamendo lets you use BY-SA.
all the best,
drew
"You question whether this is a sustainable business model for the rest of the artists, since you postulate that this is a one time reaction to a novel idea."
Some possibly relevant info:
http://www.sportsmemorabilia.com/sports-memorabilia/autographed-baseballs/
Derek Jeter Autographed Baseball
List Price: $647.35
Our Price: $474.99
http://www.sportsmemorabilia.com/sports-memorabilia/autographed-footballs/
Peyton Manning Autographed Football
List Price: $588.50
Our Price: $467.50
http://www.sportsmemorabilia.com/sports-memorabilia/autographed-basketballs/
LeBron James Autographed Basketball
List Price: $1,412.37
Our Price: $1,049.00
Jordan's is more.
http://www.sportsmemorabilia.com/sports-memorabilia/autographed-golf-balls/
Tiger Woods Autographed Dubai Panoramic Framed 12x30 Photograph
List Price: $1,522.04
Our Price: $1,086.08
I think there is a lot of room for sales with this formula.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
"I guarentee that if I played you one of each you would know the difference :)"
Mandy? Is that you?
all the best,
drew
We are looking for ways to earn some money from our music now. I just re-looked at Sellaband yesterday. The thing is, from what I can tell, we can't do business with them as we want our work to be licensed CC BY-SA and they do not offer us that option. I will probably be contacting them directly to make sure though. Magnatune seems to suffer from the same problem. Jamendo looks like they may work for us.
all the best,
drew
"I see a red door and I want it painted black."
Take on of your mother's little helpers. Fix ya right up.
all the best,
drew
"Why not?"
Because they should be made whole and not enriched perhaps?
Perhaps set aside the punitive part for their continuing the action all the way to the conclusion and then after that, elsewhere. And let them collect their legal fees if that is already in your system. I see pluses and minuses to doing things that way. If I have it right, we don't allow that here, each party pays their own costs.
all the best,
drew
"You say the award should not go to the plaintiff, but don't even give a single reason why."
The reason why is contained in the statement in the post I responded to.
The point is made that punitive damages are in place to punish an entity enough so they think twice before they do it again. They have nothing to do with the damage suffered by the other party. You can punish the one party without giving what amounts to a lottery winning to the other party. Make the other party whole. Give the punitive part to some other good cause. Say others who have suffered in a similar way? As a last resort just to the public coffers that match the court.
I am not saying to get rid of the punitive damages in case you are wondering.
all the best,
drew
"That is not why. Most countries that do not have punitive damage allowances in their laws are usually run by tyrants anyways. The idea of of punitive damages is to punish an entity enough so they think twice before they do it again, it's a civil punishment for a civil case where a criminal punishment should be enacted but cannot be for whatever reason."
Well, if that is the case, the punitive part of the award should not go to the plaintiff.
all the best,
drew
"But that's just it. Federal law says that the US Government cannot claim copyright on anything it creates"
Where did this come from? But since you bring it up.
Federal law can change and make everything it creates copyleft instead of public domain.
Or, federally created documents can be marked as public domain and solve the problem that way.
Automatic copyleft instead of automatic copyrights is a nice compromise. You can simply avoid the automatic provisions by putting whatever proper copyright notice you like on your work. But all those works with no notice are suddenly not totally off limits to people wanting to make creative and productive use of them.
all the best,
drew
"This would be really bad as well. Copyleft isn't something unique. There are many copyleft licenses, most of which incompatible with each other. ..."
I am sure we could make a stab at solving the problem you bring up...
If copyright can be defined in law, so can copyleft. Then, make the automatic copyleft a generic one which can go into any valid copyleft licensed works and at that point the derivatives would take on the specifics of the license used by the person making the derivative.
Don't forget, this is only for unmarked works, not unregistered ones. So, if you want your copyright or a specific copyleft from the break, mark the work as copyright and put any license on it you wish to.
"What would be more fair is just stating that everything is copyrighted by default (like it is now), but after 10-20 years, you need to either register the copyright (for a small fee) or else you lose it.
I don't agree, if you can't be bothered to put a copyright notice on your work... etc.
all the best,
drew
"Why would they do that?"
Because you can easily make the point that giving out the license to the public should stand in place of your tax?
Because it becomes a popular idea that it should be done and they want the votes?
all the best,
drew
"So you write your program and GPL it, don't pay the property tax."
Not necessarily. Just give an exemption of the copyright holder puts a Free, copyleft license on the work. Problem solved.
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts-on-copyright-offensive.html
all the best,
drew
"my thoughts are my Intelectual property aren't they"
probably not. you don't get an automatic copyright until you fix them...
all the best,
drew
"It seems to me that unless you take a somewhat relaxed stance toward personal property, you have to recognize that expiration of copyright prior to exhaustion of value takes something from the author."
Sure, but you are only taking a part of what you gave him in the first place. Not that you gave him the work, but you gave him the copyright.
all the best,
drew
"Real Estate, land-use/minerals, and sometimes cars and big-ticket items and the other property of wealthy individuals is taxed."
Fair enough.
Let the copyright holder self assess the value of the work.
Keep them honest as explained here:
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts-on-copyright-offensive.html
Then exempt low value works. Tax the high value works. Feel free to add that refinement in a comment if you like.
all the best,
drew
"It sounds great in theory. In practice, however, it would be untenable. Linus would never be able to afford the property taxes on Linux, and as a result Microsoft with its billions in cash reserves would be able to buy it for a steal (unless of course Linus let it into the public domain, a decision I'm not even sure he could make.)"
Not a real problem, give an exception to any work put under a Free Copyleft license.
See: http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts-on-copyright-offensive.html
all the best,
drew
"You declare a value, you pay taxes based on that, and anybody can force you to sell it to them at that price."
Pretty much the solution I put forward here:
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts-on-copyright-offensive.html
With a few minor twists.
drew