"The article poster is about to discover a harsh reality of the open source model: if you give your software away, profit-making businesses aren't going to pay for it unless there's something else in there to sweeten the deal and the software is just a means to that end."
I would not bet on this. If a piece of software is central to a business, they will want reliable support before commiting to that software. A smart business might just hold off until professional contracted support is available.
"If you're expecting to make money just by developing and supplying open source POS software, you've got the wrong business model..."
Right, unless you go into the bespoke and paid up front angle.
I also still feel that there is hugh untapped potential in Association funding.
National Retail Merchants Association? Local Chamber of Commerce? National Locksmiths Association? How much could they benefit their members if they charged $5 extra for membership and used that to fund Free Copyleft (GPL) programs that would benefit their members / industry?
There is money to be saved with this idea and the old saying of "a penny saved is a penny earned" still makes sense.
"But then you still have the issue of "Big company willing to support me on a tested and true product and have it already figured out.""
Yes and I fully understand this thought as I face it now in another area.
"Big people with big money won't even think of it as an option."
Could be and could be their loss. They could get together and probably kick in an extra 5% to 10% of their budget for these aps for a few years and end up with a jointly owned company to develop and support their spanking new blender codebase and then see their expenses plummet at the end of those few years and stay lower from then on.
"But a great many people, some with influence, some just with experience in industry apps, don't."
Surely these people have the option of kicking in some moola and hiring some UI designers and coders and making it so. Right now. They can begin today. Especially industry people.
And I say this as a person who has tried getting things done in blender without too much (or any) success so far.
I graduated in 81 with a BS in ocean engineering. I sat for and obtained my Florida State Engineer Intern Certificate. (I seem to remember us calling it the EIT.)
I never did a lick of work in the field after that and ended up teaching myself what I needed to know to get by in the area of computers.
"Or they can start their own companies right away and get short term success, maybe even long term success."
Not as engineers though right? I mean, engineers still need to work in the industry under a PE before they can sit for their PE license. (broad concept...) Well, I guess they could hire PEs and work under them while still being their boss in some way...
"No, never, and I've been writing software since the early 1970's. What's to hold up?"
Try google. Could be something to do with no consideration and automatic copyrights, but I can't remember and I am a bit weary of this thread.
Also, perhaps the cc-licenses list.
It is not that I don't think it should be possible to put something in the public domain.
I don't think we should have this automatic copyright deal myself, but we do.
"With a PD release mechanism, AB is mine to give;"
Bingo, and so the person getting AB does not have the four freedoms with it unless you choose to give them. If someone is not ok with that for their A, I see some form of copyleft, copyright license as being one clean way to combat that.
"The only difference between AB and A are the differences (B) I put in it; as you are perfectly free to have A without the B differences, you have no legitimate claim on AB (or B, which is really what you get when you get AB, as you already had A) unless I choose to offer that option."
Sure, but since the guy writing A is making use of the same laws, write your own A if you don't like his license for his A. And don't forget where he gets this power.
"This license formalizes an exchange. If you use this code and distribute it in any manner, you agree to exchange the right to distribute what is provided here for (1) a commitment to distribute any new and/or derived and/or duplicated version in the same manner and (2) extend this commitment in such a way as it remains in force for each successive generation."
Nope.
You can use it without agreeing. This doesn't permit private derivatives. Could be more issues.
"In the legalese equivalent, of course. Have to give the lawyers their ragged, bleeding, abused pound of flesh."
Bingo. And you get something like the GPL out of that. Youu think the lawyers are going to make something simple? I keep asking around. No one ever comes close from what I have seen.
"That's the entire point of it, after all. The "four freedoms" are actually diminished by this type of license."
Yes, they are. For the first generation. But the goal is to reduce them as little as possible while ensuring they exist for future generations. PD gives the most to the first generation while doing nothing to ensure them for subsequent generations.
"Of course it is... what an... unexpected remark. Huh. Have you truly never run into a PD release?"
Of course I have, I have also seen people question whether they will hold up. Have you never seen such questions? I seem to run into them fairly often.
"No, no, just wait a minute! They never had the four freedoms with respect to B; they had the four freedoms with respect to A, and they still do. I didn't give them A, I gave them B."
Bingo, and so you gave them B without them having the four freedoms. That is my point exactly.
Now, if you want to actually try and answer the question I asked and am still asking you. Can you think of a cleaner wording for a license that will do what the GPL does / tries to do?
You do get that it is trying to bring about a world where these four freedoms exist for all users with respect to all the code they have? (I just worded that off the top of my head, so I hope I got it about right.)
"It seems to me that what you are arguing for is that by writing A and releasing it as GPL, A gets to control all software that incorporates it downstream, regardless of the magnitude of additional effort or anything else for that matter."
(minor nit - A is the first program, not the first programmer)
The first programmer can only control via the GPL license on A, what the copyright law allows. So, The second programmer, (I removed the me and you to try and ease up) wants to exert even more control over B and anything that may come from B than the first person does with A. Also using that same copyright law that A uses via the GPL.
"It appears I've established that your outlook, that A should control B, is without merit other than it gets you additional free stuff you didn't have to write yourself."
Nope, but I do agree that there is some "judo" going on. Or some hoist and petard action.
It is using copyright law to try and reverse the effects of copyright law in a fairly narrow domain.
Like I said, if you feel like trying to get copyright laws abolished so that all of our code can be Free, I may not think that the best, but I will not fight that too hard unless I learn something new.
But please, don't come back with arguments that do not relate to the real question asked.
PD allows someone in the chain to take away freedoms for derivative works should anyone in the chain desire. As such, it does not "protect the four freedoms in all situations" which was how I worded my original question.
I get your points, you seem to want to answer a question I am not asking or to convince me that protecting the four freedoms in all situations is not worth doing.
I can't think of another way to protect the four freedoms in all situations with respect to copyright than via copyleft (anyone have any other ideas that do so and not ones that don't) and as such, my specific question to the person I asked it of was if they could word a license (I assume this must be a copyleft license, but I may be wrong and would be happy to be as it would give me more options) that will protect the four freedoms in all situations.
If you want to take a shot at that, please do. If you want to convince me that copyleft is ill advised, please take it private or better yet, leave it for another day.
I am not being rude. If you have issues with copyleft in general, say so. If you like copyleft, but have issues with the GPL itself, say so.
Just in case you missed the context:
"The thing is, I don't disagree with you. I'm fine with the GPL in any form, because frankly, it's the author's decision to use it and I respect that. My point is that it's a confusing muddle to wade through,"
and
""I'm not saying don't use it. I'm not even saying it's bad. I'm saying it is murky, and the article makes perfect sense to me because of that murkiness."
To which I responded:
Could be. Can you think of a better wording for a license that will protect the four freedoms in all situations?
Then you come along with:
"The better choice is PD, as in, I release this source code as PD - you can do anything you like with it. The FSF's four freedoms are:"
Did you misunderstand the context or my question that badly?
PD may indeed give the four freedoms to the first generation as does the BSD. But neither protect those freedoms for subsequent generations.
I asked a question in the context of an agreement with copyleft but seeking for better language. You come along with the old BSD vs GPL argument with PD as a stand in for the BSD.
But, just so you know. If the government wants to do away with copyright and put everything in the public domain, I will kick up less over that than I do now over how the system is run.
Now, if you would like to answer the question in light of better language for a copyleft license, fine. If you do not like the idea of copyleft, that is not an argument I am looking to have in this thread. Perhaps we will run into each other in another thread.
Please, I am not that dense and it is not that late...
"For #3, you can redistribute or not, just as under the GPL. But you can also redistribute as closed source, modified or not, which you cannot do under the GPL."
And there go the freedoms in some situations. If you want to honestly try to answer the question, fine. If you just want to have the freedom to restrict the freedom of others, let's not argue, we just disagree.
"When you release a new version of your product and only 6% of your customers decide to upgrade, it might be a good time to fire the person responsible for it."
Not sure why. I think I like the ideas I think are in the GPLv3. But... I am busy. I have not even taken the time to read the new license carefully enough to know if I should switch my few unimportant projects over. Plus, most of the objections I see are from people who seem to want loopholes in the protection of the four freedoms.
"Even though I may agree with some the philosophical aims of GPL3, I have a problem with a software code license that tries to reach out and control general business behavior of individuals or organizations."
This is fairly interesting. Is the power in the present copyright laws to allow this? If so, is it there as a result of FSF pushing for changes to the law to make it so?
Mind you, if you accept free market ideas, and accept that there can be free markets in goods protected by copyrights and patents, (the latter of which I don't) I should be free to try the Paint Your House Red License. Those who don't want to paint their house red can choose not to use my software. (I don't really agree with what I just said, but...)
To bad we can't easily write meta licenses:
Meta GPL.
list four freedoms.
Instructions to lawyers and judges...
Insert clauses needed for your jurisdiction to ensure the four freedoms are protected with reguard to this code or any part of it in every possible case. If you find a loophole, plug it.
"I'm not saying don't use it. I'm not even saying it's bad. I'm saying it is murky, and the article makes perfect sense to me because of that murkiness."
Could be. Can you think of a better wording for a license that will protect the four freedoms in all situations?
I think you may have misunderstood me. I do not live in a rural area.
The governemtn in this country owns a corporation that has a monopoly on electricity. It owns anotehr corporation that has a monopoly on water and sewerage. It owns a thirs corporation that, until recently, had a monopoly on the phone system and still has a monopoly on the cell phone system.
And they have made some monopoly plays with in country scheduled airline service as well...
Why do governments need to protect natural monopolies? Perhaps regulate them after they achieve their natural monopolies, but don't pass laws to keep competitors out of the market should they wish to enter...???
A market in goods protected by government granted monopoly copyright or patent rights is not a free market even where market dominance does not happen.
"At the very least, try to obtain permission to include proprietary codecs like MP3 from the patent-holders."
This is not a safe route from what I gather. What would be needed is for the law to be changed along lines something like this.
Entity A wants to use technology Z. A publishes their intention to do so in the public register or preferably some international equivalent. A calls on all patent holders over technology Z to come forward and make themselves known.
A makes / tries to make deals with those who come forward. After A is satisfied they are OK to go ahead, they do so.
Any entity trying to assert patents over technology Z who did not come forward during the legally set time period is prevented from doing so.
I seem to remember something involving MP3 tech fairly recently that shows the need for the above.
"Look at the electric company (assuming it's not forced by government intervention to let competitors use its power lines)."
Nope, not where I am from. Where I am from, the electric company is a government owned monopoly. Supposedly with laws that make you buy from them and prevent you from generating your own where they have lines by your property. Plus, if they don't have lines near your property, you have to pay to have the poles and lines run if you do happen to want to buy from them.
Now, why would natural monopolies need laws to keep competition at bay?
"Because there are other licenses that disallow commercial use that the photographer could have chosen."
What other CC licenses would allow a photographer to give commercial rights to others insofar as his rights are concerned?
I like to use BY-SA. I only want to license out to others the rights I have. I do not want to do their work for them for no charge and obtain the other rights they may need to make commercial use of my copyrighted work in ways that may be unknown to me and in places with laws I may not know either.
You can use my copyrights for commercial purposes, if you need other rights to be cleared from other parties (or even from me) depending on your intended use, clear them.
Are you saying such a license should not be possible?
"The CC clause doesn't release the photographer from their duty of care. By using a licence that allowed commercial use when they clearly did not possess those rights may be deemed fraudulent and deceptive behaviour."
Some may try to take it that way, but they shouldn't.
You take a picture of a street scene and put it up on the net. You put it under a "copyright" license that allows others to make use of your copyrights in the photo without payment, etc. so long as they give you attribution.
Why should you have to get release forms from eveyone in the scene when many of the uses possible, some perhaps which could be considered commercial, would not require releases? Shouldn't it be up to the person making the use which needs the realease to be sure they have it?
Shouldn't there be some way for you to license your copyrights this way?
"IMHO Virgin would be in the clear. They didnt break any law. They obeyed the licence."
See, they may not have violated the terms of the copyright license to the picture which would be rights the photographer gave. (The claim sees to be that they violated even that though as the claim is they did not give the Attribution required by the Attribution (BY) license.
There are other rights that need to be cleared to use a photo of a person like they did though - or so it seems. Whereas if the photo was of a wave breaking on a public beach, or a seagull on the same beach...
One reason I tend to put very few pics of people up though.
"The family of Alison Chang says Virgin Mobile grabbed the picture from Flickr, Yahoo Inc's popular photo-sharing website, and failed to credit the photographer by name."
The claim is virgin didn't even follow the license.
Also, unless Flickr was using a v 1.0 license, the license only licenses the creators copyrights, any other rights needed must be obtained by the user on their own.
Seems virgin may not have done this. We shall see...
How they claim CC does the lincesing is ming boggling. That would be like someone putting some of MS's shared source code out under the GPL without permission and MS suing the FSF claiming that they licensed the code just because someone chose to use the GPL for hteir misdeeds...
Sorry, couldn't be botherd to come up with a car analogy... ~;-)
"I suspect this is will be the primary point of failure for the lawsuit. If Virgin choose to fight this, then a counter suit against the photographer for failing in their duty of care to get a model release while offering the photo to be licensed for commercial use will bring some serious pressure upon him."
I doubt it, unless it was a v1.0 license. That license made such assurances iirc. The current licenses specifically disclaim such.
UNLESS OTHERWISE MUTUALLY AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES IN WRITING, LICENSOR OFFERS THE WORK AS-IS AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF ANY RIGHTS HELD IN THE LICENSED WORK BY THE LICENSOR. THE LICENSOR MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE WORK, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MARKETABILITY, MERCHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, OR THE ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO SUCH EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
1. By offering the Work for public release under this License, Licensor represents and warrants that, to the best of Licensor's knowledge after reasonable inquiry:
1. Licensor has secured all rights in the Work necessary to grant the license rights hereunder and to permit the lawful exercise of the rights granted hereunder without You having any obligation to pay any royalties, compulsory license fees, residuals or any other payments;
2. The Work does not infringe the copyright, trademark, publicity rights, common law rights or any other right of any third party or constitute defamation, invasion of privacy or other tortious injury to any third party.
2. EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY STATED IN THIS LICENSE OR OTHERWISE AGREED IN WRITING OR REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE WORK IS LICENSED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES REGARDING THE CONTENTS OR ACCURACY OF THE WORK.
So, unless Flickr was using the 1.0 license at the time?...
Oh, and this bit from the/. post:
"'The lawsuit, filed in Dallas late yesterday, names Virgin Mobile USA LLC, its Australian counterpart, and Creative Commons Corp, a Massachusetts nonprofit that licenses sharing of Flickr photos, as defendants."
CC does not license sharing of Flickr photos... Flickr chooses to let people avail themselves of the CC licenses to license their own photos. Flickr doesn't license those photots and CC doesn't, the photographers do.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
Without modification, I would definately agree. With modification is not so clear. Could you not retain the notice and the rest but add you own different copyright notice for the overall work / modified work (while pointing to the original or even including an unmodified copy of the original with the original license?)
Or is the BSD really a copyleft license when it comes to source but one which allows non-Free and non-copyleft use if you like? If that is really the case, I am confused as to the BSD guys problems with the GPL insisting on only the GPL for derivatives. They would be insisting on the same except if you go non-Free.
Hmmm. Perhaps I am wrong here. How does MS treat the famous, alleged, BSD bits in Windows when it somes to their sharing of their source with those that they share it with? Anyone know?
Slashdot Mirror
"The article poster is about to discover a harsh reality of the open source model: if you give your software away, profit-making businesses aren't going to pay for it unless there's something else in there to sweeten the deal and the software is just a means to that end."
I would not bet on this. If a piece of software is central to a business, they will want reliable support before commiting to that software. A smart business might just hold off until professional contracted support is available.
"If you're expecting to make money just by developing and supplying open source POS software, you've got the wrong business model..."
Right, unless you go into the bespoke and paid up front angle.
I also still feel that there is hugh untapped potential in Association funding.
National Retail Merchants Association? Local Chamber of Commerce? National Locksmiths Association? How much could they benefit their members if they charged $5 extra for membership and used that to fund Free Copyleft (GPL) programs that would benefit their members / industry?
There is money to be saved with this idea and the old saying of "a penny saved is a penny earned" still makes sense.
all the best,
drew
http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=178
Underwater Fun
"But then you still have the issue of "Big company willing to support me on a tested and true product and have it already figured out.""
Yes and I fully understand this thought as I face it now in another area.
"Big people with big money won't even think of it as an option."
Could be and could be their loss. They could get together and probably kick in an extra 5% to 10% of their budget for these aps for a few years and end up with a jointly owned company to develop and support their spanking new blender codebase and then see their expenses plummet at the end of those few years and stay lower from then on.
all the best,
drew
"But a great many people, some with influence, some just with experience in industry apps, don't."
Surely these people have the option of kicking in some moola and hiring some UI designers and coders and making it so. Right now. They can begin today. Especially industry people.
And I say this as a person who has tried getting things done in blender without too much (or any) success so far.
all the best,
drew
"This still leaves a lot of opportunity open."
Sure. I wasn't hinting otherwise.
I graduated in 81 with a BS in ocean engineering. I sat for and obtained my Florida State Engineer Intern Certificate. (I seem to remember us calling it the EIT.)
I never did a lick of work in the field after that and ended up teaching myself what I needed to know to get by in the area of computers.
all the best,
drew
"Or they can start their own companies right away and get short term success, maybe even long term success."
Not as engineers though right? I mean, engineers still need to work in the industry under a PE before they can sit for their PE license. (broad concept...) Well, I guess they could hire PEs and work under them while still being their boss in some way...
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biOFnAlXrV8
UFO engineering there...
"No, never, and I've been writing software since the early 1970's. What's to hold up?"
Try google. Could be something to do with no consideration and automatic copyrights, but I can't remember and I am a bit weary of this thread.
Also, perhaps the cc-licenses list.
It is not that I don't think it should be possible to put something in the public domain.
I don't think we should have this automatic copyright deal myself, but we do.
"With a PD release mechanism, AB is mine to give;"
Bingo, and so the person getting AB does not have the four freedoms with it unless you choose to give them. If someone is not ok with that for their A, I see some form of copyleft, copyright license as being one clean way to combat that.
"The only difference between AB and A are the differences (B) I put in it; as you are perfectly free to have A without the B differences, you have no legitimate claim on AB (or B, which is really what you get when you get AB, as you already had A) unless I choose to offer that option."
Sure, but since the guy writing A is making use of the same laws, write your own A if you don't like his license for his A. And don't forget where he gets this power.
"This license formalizes an exchange. If you use this code and distribute it in any manner, you agree to exchange the right to distribute what is provided here for (1) a commitment to distribute any new and/or derived and/or duplicated version in the same manner and (2) extend this commitment in such a way as it remains in force for each successive generation."
Nope.
You can use it without agreeing.
This doesn't permit private derivatives.
Could be more issues.
"In the legalese equivalent, of course. Have to give the lawyers their ragged, bleeding, abused pound of flesh."
Bingo. And you get something like the GPL out of that. Youu think the lawyers are going to make something simple? I keep asking around. No one ever comes close from what I have seen.
"That's the entire point of it, after all. The "four freedoms" are actually diminished by this type of license."
Yes, they are. For the first generation. But the goal is to reduce them as little as possible while ensuring they exist for future generations. PD gives the most to the first generation while doing nothing to ensure them for subsequent generations.
all the best,
drew
"Of course it is... what an... unexpected remark. Huh. Have you truly never run into a PD release?"
Of course I have, I have also seen people question whether they will hold up. Have you never seen such questions? I seem to run into them fairly often.
"No, no, just wait a minute! They never had the four freedoms with respect to B; they had the four freedoms with respect to A, and they still do. I didn't give them A, I gave them B."
Bingo, and so you gave them B without them having the four freedoms. That is my point exactly.
Now, if you want to actually try and answer the question I asked and am still asking you. Can you think of a cleaner wording for a license that will do what the GPL does / tries to do?
You do get that it is trying to bring about a world where these four freedoms exist for all users with respect to all the code they have? (I just worded that off the top of my head, so I hope I got it about right.)
"It seems to me that what you are arguing for is that by writing A and releasing it as GPL, A gets to control all software that incorporates it downstream, regardless of the magnitude of additional effort or anything else for that matter."
(minor nit - A is the first program, not the first programmer)
The first programmer can only control via the GPL license on A, what the copyright law allows. So, The second programmer, (I removed the me and you to try and ease up) wants to exert even more control over B and anything that may come from B than the first person does with A. Also using that same copyright law that A uses via the GPL.
"It appears I've established that your outlook, that A should control B, is without merit other than it gets you additional free stuff you didn't have to write yourself."
Nope, but I do agree that there is some "judo" going on. Or some hoist and petard action.
It is using copyright law to try and reverse the effects of copyright law in a fairly narrow domain.
Like I said, if you feel like trying to get copyright laws abolished so that all of our code can be Free, I may not think that the best, but I will not fight that too hard unless I learn something new.
But please, don't come back with arguments that do not relate to the real question asked.
all the best,
drew
"I ask you again, exactly how does PD allow freedoms to be taken away?"
OK, I release program A as PD (if that is indeed possible)...
You make a new program B based laregly on A and release it (C) all rights reserved.
Third person gets B from you and now does not have the four freedoms with respect to B. Was it really not clear that I was getting at this?
all the best,
drew
You can play all the fancy word games you want.
PD allows someone in the chain to take away freedoms for derivative works should anyone in the chain desire. As such, it does not "protect the four freedoms in all situations" which was how I worded my original question.
I get your points, you seem to want to answer a question I am not asking or to convince me that protecting the four freedoms in all situations is not worth doing.
I can't think of another way to protect the four freedoms in all situations with respect to copyright than via copyleft (anyone have any other ideas that do so and not ones that don't) and as such, my specific question to the person I asked it of was if they could word a license (I assume this must be a copyleft license, but I may be wrong and would be happy to be as it would give me more options) that will protect the four freedoms in all situations.
If you want to take a shot at that, please do. If you want to convince me that copyleft is ill advised, please take it private or better yet, leave it for another day.
all the best,
drew
I am not being rude. If you have issues with copyleft in general, say so. If you like copyleft, but have issues with the GPL itself, say so.
Just in case you missed the context:
"The thing is, I don't disagree with you. I'm fine with the GPL in any form, because frankly, it's the author's decision to use it and I respect that. My point is that it's a confusing muddle to wade through,"
and
""I'm not saying don't use it. I'm not even saying it's bad. I'm saying it is murky, and the article makes perfect sense to me because of that murkiness."
To which I responded:
Could be. Can you think of a better wording for a license that will protect the four freedoms in all situations?
Then you come along with:
"The better choice is PD, as in, I release this source code as PD - you can do anything you like with it. The FSF's four freedoms are:"
Did you misunderstand the context or my question that badly?
PD may indeed give the four freedoms to the first generation as does the BSD. But neither protect those freedoms for subsequent generations.
I asked a question in the context of an agreement with copyleft but seeking for better language. You come along with the old BSD vs GPL argument with PD as a stand in for the BSD.
But, just so you know. If the government wants to do away with copyright and put everything in the public domain, I will kick up less over that than I do now over how the system is run.
Now, if you would like to answer the question in light of better language for a copyleft license, fine. If you do not like the idea of copyleft, that is not an argument I am looking to have in this thread. Perhaps we will run into each other in another thread.
all the best,
drew
Please, I am not that dense and it is not that late...
"For #3, you can redistribute or not, just as under the GPL. But you can also redistribute as closed source, modified or not, which you cannot do under the GPL."
And there go the freedoms in some situations. If you want to honestly try to answer the question, fine. If you just want to have the freedom to restrict the freedom of others, let's not argue, we just disagree.
all the best,
drew
"When you release a new version of your product and only 6% of your customers decide to upgrade, it might be a good time to fire the person responsible for it."
Not sure why. I think I like the ideas I think are in the GPLv3. But... I am busy. I have not even taken the time to read the new license carefully enough to know if I should switch my few unimportant projects over. Plus, most of the objections I see are from people who seem to want loopholes in the protection of the four freedoms.
all the best,
drew
"Even though I may agree with some the philosophical aims of GPL3, I have a problem with a software code license that tries to reach out and control general business behavior of individuals or organizations."
This is fairly interesting. Is the power in the present copyright laws to allow this? If so, is it there as a result of FSF pushing for changes to the law to make it so?
Mind you, if you accept free market ideas, and accept that there can be free markets in goods protected by copyrights and patents, (the latter of which I don't) I should be free to try the Paint Your House Red License. Those who don't want to paint their house red can choose not to use my software. (I don't really agree with what I just said, but...)
To bad we can't easily write meta licenses:
Meta GPL.
list four freedoms.
Instructions to lawyers and judges...
Insert clauses needed for your jurisdiction to ensure the four freedoms are protected with reguard to this code or any part of it in every possible case. If you find a loophole, plug it.
End of meta license.
all the best,
drew
"I'm not saying don't use it. I'm not even saying it's bad. I'm saying it is murky, and the article makes perfect sense to me because of that murkiness."
Could be. Can you think of a better wording for a license that will protect the four freedoms in all situations?
all the best,
drew
I think you may have misunderstood me. I do not live in a rural area.
The governemtn in this country owns a corporation that has a monopoly on electricity. It owns anotehr corporation that has a monopoly on water and sewerage. It owns a thirs corporation that, until recently, had a monopoly on the phone system and still has a monopoly on the cell phone system.
And they have made some monopoly plays with in country scheduled airline service as well...
Why do governments need to protect natural monopolies? Perhaps regulate them after they achieve their natural monopolies, but don't pass laws to keep competitors out of the market should they wish to enter...???
all the best,
drew
A market in goods protected by government granted monopoly copyright or patent rights is not a free market even where market dominance does not happen.
all the best,
drew
http://pc.celtx.com/project/PzgvZiYlZvx3/view/http://celtx.com/res/jLMr6m7L4SG4
"At the very least, try to obtain permission to include proprietary codecs like MP3 from the patent-holders."
This is not a safe route from what I gather. What would be needed is for the law to be changed along lines something like this.
Entity A wants to use technology Z. A publishes their intention to do so in the public register or preferably some international equivalent. A calls on all patent holders over technology Z to come forward and make themselves known.
A makes / tries to make deals with those who come forward. After A is satisfied they are OK to go ahead, they do so.
Any entity trying to assert patents over technology Z who did not come forward during the legally set time period is prevented from doing so.
I seem to remember something involving MP3 tech fairly recently that shows the need for the above.
all the best,
drew
http://pc.celtx.com/search?q=zotz&c=&o=rel
"Look at the electric company (assuming it's not forced by government intervention to let competitors use its power lines)."
Nope, not where I am from. Where I am from, the electric company is a government owned monopoly. Supposedly with laws that make you buy from them and prevent you from generating your own where they have lines by your property. Plus, if they don't have lines near your property, you have to pay to have the poles and lines run if you do happen to want to buy from them.
Now, why would natural monopolies need laws to keep competition at bay?
all the best,
drew
http://rukiddinmez.blogspot.com/
R U Kiddin Me?!?!?!
"Because there are other licenses that disallow commercial use that the photographer could have chosen."
What other CC licenses would allow a photographer to give commercial rights to others insofar as his rights are concerned?
I like to use BY-SA. I only want to license out to others the rights I have. I do not want to do their work for them for no charge and obtain the other rights they may need to make commercial use of my copyrighted work in ways that may be unknown to me and in places with laws I may not know either.
You can use my copyrights for commercial purposes, if you need other rights to be cleared from other parties (or even from me) depending on your intended use, clear them.
Are you saying such a license should not be possible?
all the best,
drew
http://openphoto.net/gallery/image.html?image_id=18170&hints=bahamas_sea
"The CC clause doesn't release the photographer from their duty of care. By using a licence that allowed commercial use when they clearly did not possess those rights may be deemed fraudulent and deceptive behaviour."
Some may try to take it that way, but they shouldn't.
You take a picture of a street scene and put it up on the net. You put it under a "copyright" license that allows others to make use of your copyrights in the photo without payment, etc. so long as they give you attribution.
Why should you have to get release forms from eveyone in the scene when many of the uses possible, some perhaps which could be considered commercial, would not require releases? Shouldn't it be up to the person making the use which needs the realease to be sure they have it?
Shouldn't there be some way for you to license your copyrights this way?
all the best,
drew
http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=178
"IMHO Virgin would be in the clear. They didnt break any law.
They obeyed the licence."
See, they may not have violated the terms of the copyright license to the picture which would be rights the photographer gave. (The claim sees to be that they violated even that though as the claim is they did not give the Attribution required by the Attribution (BY) license.
There are other rights that need to be cleared to use a photo of a person like they did though - or so it seems. Whereas if the photo was of a wave breaking on a public beach, or a seagull on the same beach...
One reason I tend to put very few pics of people up though.
all the best,
drew
http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=178
"Regardless of how the law sees it, that's how it seems to be to me, logically speaking."
Go read the current BY licenses and compare to the v1.0 license. You may change your mind.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts-on-copyright-offensive.html
"the only party i can see that has any fault is the party who put the image on flickr, the only party too poor to get any cash out of"
Check again.
Not that there may be facts wrong but...
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/virgin-sued-for-using-teens-photo/2007/09/21/1189881735928.html
"The family of Alison Chang says Virgin Mobile grabbed the picture from Flickr, Yahoo Inc's popular photo-sharing website, and failed to credit the photographer by name."
The claim is virgin didn't even follow the license.
Also, unless Flickr was using a v 1.0 license, the license only licenses the creators copyrights, any other rights needed must be obtained by the user on their own.
Seems virgin may not have done this. We shall see...
How they claim CC does the lincesing is ming boggling. That would be like someone putting some of MS's shared source code out under the GPL without permission and MS suing the FSF claiming that they licensed the code just because someone chose to use the GPL for hteir misdeeds...
Sorry, couldn't be botherd to come up with a car analogy... ~;-)
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
"I suspect this is will be the primary point of failure for the lawsuit. If Virgin choose to fight this, then a counter suit against the photographer for failing in their duty of care to get a model release while offering the photo to be licensed for commercial use will bring some serious pressure upon him."
/. post:
I doubt it, unless it was a v1.0 license. That license made such assurances iirc. The current licenses specifically disclaim such.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/legalcode
5. Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer
UNLESS OTHERWISE MUTUALLY AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES IN WRITING, LICENSOR OFFERS THE WORK AS-IS AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF ANY RIGHTS HELD IN THE LICENSED WORK BY THE LICENSOR. THE LICENSOR MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE WORK, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MARKETABILITY, MERCHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, OR THE ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO SUCH EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
Compared to the 1.0 license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode
5. Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer
1. By offering the Work for public release under this License, Licensor represents and warrants that, to the best of Licensor's knowledge after reasonable inquiry:
1. Licensor has secured all rights in the Work necessary to grant the license rights hereunder and to permit the lawful exercise of the rights granted hereunder without You having any obligation to pay any royalties, compulsory license fees, residuals or any other payments;
2. The Work does not infringe the copyright, trademark, publicity rights, common law rights or any other right of any third party or constitute defamation, invasion of privacy or other tortious injury to any third party.
2. EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY STATED IN THIS LICENSE OR OTHERWISE AGREED IN WRITING OR REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE WORK IS LICENSED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES REGARDING THE CONTENTS OR ACCURACY OF THE WORK.
So, unless Flickr was using the 1.0 license at the time?...
Oh, and this bit from the
"'The lawsuit, filed in Dallas late yesterday, names Virgin Mobile USA LLC, its Australian counterpart, and Creative Commons Corp, a Massachusetts nonprofit that licenses sharing of Flickr photos, as defendants."
CC does not license sharing of Flickr photos... Flickr chooses to let people avail themselves of the CC licenses to license their own photos. Flickr doesn't license those photots and CC doesn't, the photographers do.
all the best,
drew
"All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
Without modification, I would definately agree. With modification is not so clear. Could you not retain the notice and the rest but add you own different copyright notice for the overall work / modified work (while pointing to the original or even including an unmodified copy of the original with the original license?)
Or is the BSD really a copyleft license when it comes to source but one which allows non-Free and non-copyleft use if you like? If that is really the case, I am confused as to the BSD guys problems with the GPL insisting on only the GPL for derivatives. They would be insisting on the same except if you go non-Free.
Hmmm. Perhaps I am wrong here. How does MS treat the famous, alleged, BSD bits in Windows when it somes to their sharing of their source with those that they share it with? Anyone know?
all the best,
drew
http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=178
Underwater Fun.