"I agree with the mods, but remember that copyright was developed in order to create markets where none might exist because creators had no good way to capitalize their creations."
Surely free market people belive that private individuals can make a better solution than the government. That the market can make a better solution. I will not say that I agree or disagree with this notion, but if the government grants these monopolies, the free market is gone in these cases.
"So, the question is: you've stated that there are no free markets for goods protected by copyright and patent. Do you believe the same to be for goods protected by trademark?"
Well, it depends. If a trademark is used to indicate who made a good, there can be free markets in that good, sure. That is to let a buyer buy from one vendor whom he has come to trust and not from another.
I have a feeling that trademarks are used for more than that these days though. You have touched on it by mentioning branding.
Madonna is a person. Not a brand.
Without copyright law, if someone had an exclusive contract with a record company, the record company would be the only one who could release songs by that person perhaps, but once your friend had those songs, you could legally get copies. Can you explain how you envision trademark law stopping this?
So you will notice that my post said that there would only be one source in the first instance. Yes, only Elvis can make new Elvis music. But without copyright law, anyone could copy Elvis music and become a secondary source.
"Sure, I could try to break this "monopoly" by making my own shoes and putting a fake Nike logo on them, and selling them for a lower price, thus breaking the "monopoly" that Nike has."
Different game. (Perhaps.) They would not be Nike shoes and you would be deceiving the buyer. If you copied an Elvis CD, it would still be Elvis songs.
So, lets say each artist made a logo to brand their CDs. In the market you could have official artist CDs with their name and the official trademarked logo. You could have legally copied CDs with just the artist name and no logo (remember now, no copyright law in this example) and you could have unofficial knockoffs pretending to be official CDs.
My quick take is that you could have a free market in these CDs (in the absence of patents as well) but that the knockoffs would be illegal. That the knockoffs were illegal would not make the market non-free. (Do you see a reason why it would?)
This is off the top of my head. I am happy to talk it out further.
"But if you want to buy the latest Weird Al or Madonna album, there's only source. It's a monopoly, an in theory limited but in practice eternal one called "copyright"."
Bingo! Mod parent up.
There are no free markets in goods protected by copyrights and patents. These goods are covered by government granted monopolies. It should also be obvious that these monopolies distort the markets or people would likely not bother with them. I mean why go to the trouble to get a patent if it is not going to give you an advantage in the market? Why push to hve copyright terms extended if it is not going to help you in the market?
One quirk though, even without copyright, there is still only one source in the first instance for the work of a particular artist.
"Honestly, the whole idea is reminiscent of some of the worst crops of banana-republic dictatorships."
Please. Be honest now. The problem isn't that they made a deal with MS. The problem is that they deal they made was crafted specifically to get around the clear intention of the GPL and many of those that release their software under the GPL. Intentionally or unintentionally on their part.
They either violated the license or found a loophole that many want fixed in the next version.
There is some problem with trying to fix your wording when you find it doesn't do exactly what you wanted in a certain circumstance and needs to be amended so that your intentions are clearly represented?
I know what you are saying, I can't agree with the wording and I think the three examples are different enough that you can object to the first two without objecting to the third.
Well, in a nutshell. If you violate the GPL with respect to some particular code under the GPL, you lose the rights to do the things with the code that copyright law forbids but the license permits with respect to that same code.
"After this I doubt GM will ever put their custom Linux on their embedded devices in cars;"
Perhaps, perhaps not, but if they are using it on their servers or to design their cars, are they likely to stop using it for those purposes becuase of this?
"You do? You can? You can still 'make copies' into memory of the code from where it resides on your fixed disk , and run said copies?"
From the GPL itself:
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted,"
"From Novell's POV, they can't use the code. Novell can't run the code, people IN Novell can run the code, but Novell cannot."
They can use it, they can't do the things with it the license permits. But if we broaden use to suit you it is still missing the point of my post.
Look at the parent which I replied to. The third example is enough different form the first two that you could easily take issue with the first two and not the third and still be consistent.
"A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled."
Odd, what if the subscriber believes that it was not a mistake or misidentification but rather done on purpose to interfere with his business or rights?
"If the FSF can actually do this and if they go through with it, this is going to be very BAD for busines adoption Linux..."
Why? What businesses wan't to have their freedoms removed from them? What businesses, other than software businesses, want the freedom to remove freedoms from software they distribute?
Please explain how this will bother, say, General Motors. Or any random business not trying to make a profit from selling software.
Breach of the ToS: despite you being able to use it in the past, you no longer can use it.
Breach of EULA: despite you still owning the product, you no longer have license to use it.
GPL: despite you still having the code, you no longer have license to use it.
Doesn't seem to be a problem with the first two, so why the third? Because the third isn't true. You breach the GPL, you still have the code, you can still use it. You can no longer use the license to do things which copyright law says you can't do. You do not lose the right to run the software on your machine. You lose the rights that the license gave you.
"If I were an executive for an enterprise that had the choice of investing X dollars into building an open source groupware solution that met my needs or buy one, such as Exchange, that came pretty darn close... MS would get the money every time unless I was in the software business."
But that is not the thought put forward.
Rather. Your enterprise already has exchange and outlook. It is costing you $X each year.
Lots of others are in this same boat.
You could get together with them and while you keep giving $X each year for exchange/outlook, you fund developers (having some control/input all the while) to the tune of $X/10 per year.
Fairly soon, you all could have a system of Free Software that could do for your enterprises what exchange/outlook currently does. After that, your yearly drops from $1.1X to $X/10 from then on.
Do you doubt that the big players in this world could do this? (Not will or would, could.)
"And -- since the customer is the one WITH THE MONEY -- they certainly have the right to do so."
Right! And so when they figure out that something like I suggest is in their best interest, they can get it done. If someone else does it in the meantime for their own reasons, fine.
"If I can spend 110% of the cost for five years (keep outlook/exchange + 10% budget to sponsor the project) and then drop my cost to only 10% (continued development with zero licensing costs) then it's a net win for me forever and ever."
Bingo! And that is just from the money side. You also end up with Free Software instead of non-Fre and you get to avoid vendor lock in. (If you go about things carefully.)
"You mean that, for 10% of the cost of Exchange for a single customer, somebody could build an Exchange compatible Outlook competitor? What a skewed view of nature some fanboys have."
Not at all. I mean that if the world's largest companies and / or the world's governments would take 10% of their exchange/outlook budgets, they could get a system developed that would provide them the functionality that exchange/outlook currently provide for them.
In concert with one another, not one acting alone. Was that not clear before? (I doubt it would take all acting together though.)
And please, the numbers are just pulled out of a hat. No study has been done.
What you responded to was not in the context of the original story whereas your response took it that way and now your response is out of the context of the posts you responded to.
"I was under the impression that the author was not in a position to change the server-side and migrate the whole company's critical infrastructure to some other solution."
You were most likely right. But if we were to confine ourselves so narrowly, the answer would either simply be: "Tough! Suck it up!" or "XYZ will do what you want. I am surprised you didn't know about it."
End of story. The discussions seem to have quickly moved beyond that though.
"I feel his pain"
I am not unused to such pain myself. I do not call the shots in all situations.
That said, I think the big money and power players can easily get together and pay for (and oversee if they wish - loosly mind you) Free Software that will be able to meet their needs.
"To take this one step further, they already have it and it's called Exchange. I've brought this up before, so I won't rehash it too much here, but it needs to be said that a lot of people are going to stick with Microsoft because they don't want to wait for the OSS community to catch up and reinvent the wheel."
Sorry but no, not in context at least.
You may indeed be right.
But in context it was more like...
business wants to move to linux but they can't replace exchange/outlook. The linux people need to make this replacement for them.
My point was that if they want and need it, nothing is stopping them from paying for it to be done for them. (This would include them "getting together" and doing it themselves.)
If they are happy with the way things are, they do not need to go down such a road.
"Could someone make an open source product that works with Exchange?"
No need to work with exchange. Just need to replace exchange and do the job for the organisation that exchange does.
"Now, if private investors see that there's a profit to be made, sure, they might kick in to compete with Microsoft..."
Your whole last paragraph is predicated on a particular view of how software should be funded and made. To use a saying that still seems over popular:
Think outside the box.
Do you honestly think it is beyond the ability of the Frotune 500 to form a group and fund it with the express purpose of replacing exchange and outlook? Do you think it would overly tax their IT budgets? I think the big problem is that they don't see that it would benefit them or it would not benefit them.
I was responding to a problem that I had percieved (it was perhaps in the post I replied to or perhaps further up) where someone was saying that business needed this. My point was that if business needs, nothing is stopping them from paying for it and getting it.
Just because the software is Free, you are not forced to not pay for it.
So you are saying that these businesses will contribute to the open source? Ha!
"I've got a great idea Bob, our workers will work and our competitor will benefit" didn't go over well at the design meeting (scheduled via Microsoft Outlook). Well gee, I guess we better give up on Free Software completely then. Man, I have wasted well over a decade now! What shall I do?
They might only want to contribute to Free Software if it will help their bottom line. It is up to them to decide if it will. Businesses that is. Governments are a matter.
"Welcome to reality. What the business masses need is not what anyone sane and competent is willing to develop gratis. And that's the root of the problem. That's proprietary development's superweapon. That's Free Software's kryptonite."
Nope. That is where every fortune 500 company and every national government that wants to have that functionality on linux needs to look at their yearly exchange costs and kick in 10% to some development group to write such a program that will run on linux.
This just could be businesses showing their blind spot. They need it or they don't. If they do need it, they have the bucks to pay to have it. If they don't, they can stop crying out that they do. Fairly simple. Now, if it is patents that the governments have awarded on software that are holding things up, the governments at least have to look in the mirror.
Slashdot Mirror
"I agree with the mods, but remember that copyright was developed in order to create markets where none might exist because creators had no good way to capitalize their creations."
Surely free market people belive that private individuals can make a better solution than the government. That the market can make a better solution. I will not say that I agree or disagree with this notion, but if the government grants these monopolies, the free market is gone in these cases.
"Fix copyright; don't ignore it."
Happy to try.
all the best,
drew
"So, the question is: you've stated that there are no free markets for goods protected by copyright and patent. Do you believe the same to be for goods protected by trademark?"
Well, it depends. If a trademark is used to indicate who made a good, there can be free markets in that good, sure. That is to let a buyer buy from one vendor whom he has come to trust and not from another.
I have a feeling that trademarks are used for more than that these days though. You have touched on it by mentioning branding.
Madonna is a person. Not a brand.
Without copyright law, if someone had an exclusive contract with a record company, the record company would be the only one who could release songs by that person perhaps, but once your friend had those songs, you could legally get copies. Can you explain how you envision trademark law stopping this?
So you will notice that my post said that there would only be one source in the first instance. Yes, only Elvis can make new Elvis music. But without copyright law, anyone could copy Elvis music and become a secondary source.
"Sure, I could try to break this "monopoly" by making my own shoes and putting a fake Nike logo on them, and selling them for a lower price, thus breaking the "monopoly" that Nike has."
Different game. (Perhaps.) They would not be Nike shoes and you would be deceiving the buyer. If you copied an Elvis CD, it would still be Elvis songs.
So, lets say each artist made a logo to brand their CDs. In the market you could have official artist CDs with their name and the official trademarked logo. You could have legally copied CDs with just the artist name and no logo (remember now, no copyright law in this example) and you could have unofficial knockoffs pretending to be official CDs.
My quick take is that you could have a free market in these CDs (in the absence of patents as well) but that the knockoffs would be illegal. That the knockoffs were illegal would not make the market non-free. (Do you see a reason why it would?)
This is off the top of my head. I am happy to talk it out further.
all the best,
drew
"this is a classic example of supply and demand."
Let's think this through again in light of the point made above you.
There is extra supply. There is less demand, the price stays the same and the extra supply is destroyed.
So, Florida orange growers have a bumper year and prices don't go down. Instead of letting them go down they destroy the extra supply.
And this is a supply and demand issue?
If the orange growers had a government granted monopoly like the music makers do, they could pull this little stunt themselves.
all the best,
drew
"Well, no, they aren't, not entirely."
and
"But if you want to buy the latest Weird Al or Madonna album, there's only source. It's a monopoly, an in theory limited but in practice eternal one called "copyright"."
Bingo! Mod parent up.
There are no free markets in goods protected by copyrights and patents. These goods are covered by government granted monopolies. It should also be obvious that these monopolies distort the markets or people would likely not bother with them. I mean why go to the trouble to get a patent if it is not going to give you an advantage in the market? Why push to hve copyright terms extended if it is not going to help you in the market?
One quirk though, even without copyright, there is still only one source in the first instance for the work of a particular artist.
all the best,
drew
"Honestly, the whole idea is reminiscent of some of the worst crops of banana-republic dictatorships."
Please. Be honest now. The problem isn't that they made a deal with MS. The problem is that they deal they made was crafted specifically to get around the clear intention of the GPL and many of those that release their software under the GPL. Intentionally or unintentionally on their part.
They either violated the license or found a loophole that many want fixed in the next version.
There is some problem with trying to fix your wording when you find it doesn't do exactly what you wanted in a certain circumstance and needs to be amended so that your intentions are clearly represented?
all the best,
drew
I wondered if someone will do in store downloads.
Solves the bandwidth problem. Bring in your storage device, plug in - net, usb, firewire, hey even wifi.
Download in store.
Could offer larger selection than physical stock....
Haven't really thought it through. Idea just popped into the old noggin and I am pressed for time...
all the best,
drew
"Aye?"
I know what you are saying, I can't agree with the wording and I think the three examples are different enough that you can object to the first two without objecting to the third.
Well, in a nutshell. If you violate the GPL with respect to some particular code under the GPL, you lose the rights to do the things with the code that copyright law forbids but the license permits with respect to that same code.
Is that clear enough and are we agreed on that?
all the best,
drew
"After this I doubt GM will ever put their custom Linux on their embedded devices in cars;"
Perhaps, perhaps not, but if they are using it on their servers or to design their cars, are they likely to stop using it for those purposes becuase of this?
all the best,
drew
"You do? You can? You can still 'make copies' into memory of the code from where it resides on your fixed disk , and run said copies?"
From the GPL itself:
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted,"
The license itself seem to say so.
Do you see some reason to think you can't?
all the best,
drew
"From Novell's POV, they can't use the code. Novell can't run the code, people IN Novell can run the code, but Novell cannot."
They can use it, they can't do the things with it the license permits. But if we broaden use to suit you it is still missing the point of my post.
Look at the parent which I replied to. The third example is enough different form the first two that you could easily take issue with the first two and not the third and still be consistent.
Yes? No?
all the best,
drew
"A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled."
Odd, what if the subscriber believes that it was not a mistake or misidentification but rather done on purpose to interfere with his business or rights?
Why not just plain wrong?
all the best,
drew
"If the FSF can actually do this and if they go through with it, this is going to be very BAD for busines adoption Linux..."
Why? What businesses wan't to have their freedoms removed from them? What businesses, other than software businesses, want the freedom to remove freedoms from software they distribute?
Please explain how this will bother, say, General Motors. Or any random business not trying to make a profit from selling software.
all the best,
drew
Breach of EULA: despite you still owning the product, you no longer have license to use it.
GPL: despite you still having the code, you no longer have license to use it.
Doesn't seem to be a problem with the first two, so why the third? Because the third isn't true. You breach the GPL, you still have the code, you can still use it. You can no longer use the license to do things which copyright law says you can't do. You do not lose the right to run the software on your machine. You lose the rights that the license gave you.
all the best
drew
"If I were an executive for an enterprise that had the choice of investing X dollars into building an open source groupware solution that met my needs or buy one, such as Exchange, that came pretty darn close... MS would get the money every time unless I was in the software business."
But that is not the thought put forward.
Rather. Your enterprise already has exchange and outlook. It is costing you $X each year.
Lots of others are in this same boat.
You could get together with them and while you keep giving $X each year for exchange/outlook, you fund developers (having some control/input all the while) to the tune of $X/10 per year.
Fairly soon, you all could have a system of Free Software that could do for your enterprises what exchange/outlook currently does. After that, your yearly drops from $1.1X to $X/10 from then on.
Do you doubt that the big players in this world could do this? (Not will or would, could.)
all the best,
drew
"And -- since the customer is the one WITH THE MONEY -- they certainly have the right to do so."
Right! And so when they figure out that something like I suggest is in their best interest, they can get it done. If someone else does it in the meantime for their own reasons, fine.
all the best,
drew
"If I can spend 110% of the cost for five years (keep outlook/exchange + 10% budget to sponsor the project) and then drop my cost to only 10% (continued development with zero licensing costs) then it's a net win for me forever and ever."
Bingo! And that is just from the money side. You also end up with Free Software instead of non-Fre and you get to avoid vendor lock in. (If you go about things carefully.)
all the best,
drew
"How would that be different from paying a company to develop it for them. I don't know... maybe someone like... say... Microsoft?"
Because at the end of the excercise they would be using Free Software and could avoid vendor lock in perhaps?
all the best,
drew
"You mean that, for 10% of the cost of Exchange for a single customer, somebody could build an Exchange compatible Outlook competitor? What a skewed view of nature some fanboys have."
Not at all. I mean that if the world's largest companies and / or the world's governments would take 10% of their exchange/outlook budgets, they could get a system developed that would provide them the functionality that exchange/outlook currently provide for them.
In concert with one another, not one acting alone. Was that not clear before? (I doubt it would take all acting together though.)
And please, the numbers are just pulled out of a hat. No study has been done.
all the best,
drew
"And get busted for cracking the IT department?"
What you responded to was not in the context of the original story whereas your response took it that way and now your response is out of the context of the posts you responded to.
"I was under the impression that the author was not in a position to change the server-side and migrate the whole company's critical infrastructure to some other solution."
You were most likely right. But if we were to confine ourselves so narrowly, the answer would either simply be: "Tough! Suck it up!" or "XYZ will do what you want. I am surprised you didn't know about it."
End of story. The discussions seem to have quickly moved beyond that though.
"I feel his pain"
I am not unused to such pain myself. I do not call the shots in all situations.
That said, I think the big money and power players can easily get together and pay for (and oversee if they wish - loosly mind you) Free Software that will be able to meet their needs.
all the best,
drew
"It can do almost everything, but the things that it can't do ARE CRITCAL to day-to-day functionality for me."
Sure, but for me, it has been my desktop and servers for a good number of years now.
When we do this though, we are giving personal data points. Unless someone is making an "all X" kind of argument, they remain pretty much just that.
all the best,
drew
"To take this one step further, they already have it and it's called Exchange. I've brought this up before, so I won't rehash it too much here, but it needs to be said that a lot of people are going to stick with Microsoft because they don't want to wait for the OSS community to catch up and reinvent the wheel."
Sorry but no, not in context at least.
You may indeed be right.
But in context it was more like...
business wants to move to linux but they can't replace exchange/outlook. The linux people need to make this replacement for them.
My point was that if they want and need it, nothing is stopping them from paying for it to be done for them. (This would include them "getting together" and doing it themselves.)
If they are happy with the way things are, they do not need to go down such a road.
all the best,
drew
"Could someone make an open source product that works with Exchange?"
No need to work with exchange. Just need to replace exchange and do the job for the organisation that exchange does.
"Now, if private investors see that there's a profit to be made, sure, they might kick in to compete with Microsoft..."
Your whole last paragraph is predicated on a particular view of how software should be funded and made. To use a saying that still seems over popular:
Think outside the box.
Do you honestly think it is beyond the ability of the Frotune 500 to form a group and fund it with the express purpose of replacing exchange and outlook? Do you think it would overly tax their IT budgets? I think the big problem is that they don't see that it would benefit them or it would not benefit them.
I was responding to a problem that I had percieved (it was perhaps in the post I replied to or perhaps further up) where someone was saying that business needed this. My point was that if business needs, nothing is stopping them from paying for it and getting it.
Just because the software is Free, you are not forced to not pay for it.
all the best,
drew
"If you want them to buy your better mousetrap, it better do all the mouse-trapping chores that their current mousetrap does."
I am happy solving my mouse problem with my better mousetrap. If they don't see how it can benefit their bottom line, fine.
So, perhaps there is no problem at all then?
all the best,
drew
"I've got a great idea Bob, our workers will work and our competitor will benefit" didn't go over well at the design meeting (scheduled via Microsoft Outlook). Well gee, I guess we better give up on Free Software completely then. Man, I have wasted well over a decade now! What shall I do?
They might only want to contribute to Free Software if it will help their bottom line. It is up to them to decide if it will. Businesses that is. Governments are a matter.
all the best,
drew
"Welcome to reality. What the business masses need is not what anyone sane and competent is willing to develop gratis. And that's the root of the problem. That's proprietary development's superweapon. That's Free Software's kryptonite."
Nope. That is where every fortune 500 company and every national government that wants to have that functionality on linux needs to look at their yearly exchange costs and kick in 10% to some development group to write such a program that will run on linux.
This just could be businesses showing their blind spot. They need it or they don't. If they do need it, they have the bucks to pay to have it. If they don't, they can stop crying out that they do. Fairly simple. Now, if it is patents that the governments have awarded on software that are holding things up, the governments at least have to look in the mirror.
Yes? No?
all the best,
drew