if you could just rewrite this in the classic four step outline, you may get the grant.
1. 2. 3. ??? 4. Profit
I have taken the liberty of giving you the standard template and have even filled out parts 3 and 4 for you. Good luck. If you get the grant, I am available for sub-contracting in any number of key areas.
[Oh, I've read it. I've release certain things under BSD, because when I give something away, I really give it away, not 'give it away but you've got to promise me shit in return.']
Ah, but when I release stuff under the GPL or under a CC BY-SA I am not giving it away, but then neither are you fully giving it away if you put it under the BSD, you would need to somehow put it in the public domain to really give it away.
So, you can distribute the software you create under terms way more restrictive than the GPL and that is cool, but if I distribute the software I write under the GPL, I am some sort of bad guy? I am not sure I follow.
(Sorry if I set up a straw man to fight unintentionally.)
I wonder if these same people would build on libraries or deploy on OSes that required them to pay a percentage of the revenue from their software "product"?
Hey, why not license your software such that the user has to pay a percentage of their revenue as a yearly license fee?
1. a. Don't write it unless you get a fair compensation for the labour involved.
1. b. Or unless you need to use the functionality to make your "life" better.
2. In the case of 1.b. - can you get done quicker starting with already written "Free Software" - if so, no problem.
See how easy this really is? (I know I am posting this in a reply to your post when it is really answering some of the posts further up the tree. Down the tree?)
You will see a lot of straw men being knocked over if you read many posts in this thread.
[When I write a piece of open source code, that takes a bit of my time too and is sometimes boring. By RMS's logic, I should charge each user some sort of nuissance fee so that my time is better spent on more "productive pursuits" or somesuch.]
Nope, not a good parallel. You can easily charge a fee to the one asking you to write that piece of code and get closer.
Also, nothing stops you from charging for every "handover" that you make. (Or am I missing something?) Now, why would they pay for his autograph and not for a "handover" from you? Perhaps if you gave an autographed certificate of "handover" with each one you might stand more of a chance? I don't know...
I find it interesting that so many people who believe in Free Markets (hint, you can count me in that number) do not think the Free Market can find a solution to this problem (hint, I am probably not in this number) but that the government is needed to step in and grant monopoly rights or art and the like would cease to be made.
[They'd wait for him to perform, tape it and distribute the song that way, without giving him a cent.]
And exactly how would they do this? The artist would have a EULA on the back of his concert tickets making this illegal. Let's hear what they would do instead.
[The balance is way off. But that doesn't mean we have to throw the right out, we just have to put it back into balance.]
This is true, perhaps not for the reasons you hold, but do you have any sure fire ways to do this in a reasonable time frame? You don't have to throw the right out, but you could without taking one of those inalienable rights from anyone.
One thing though. Since the markets in question already have the government deeply involved in them, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the government step in to fix problems that arise, there being no free market at work to fix the issues.
[Interesting Point, but I never said free market, because it's not a free market.]
If you check your post again carefully, I think you will see that I quoted you fairly accurately. You mention 'market forces' and also the "free market" (different paragraphs.)
Don't jump to too many conclusion about my hippie tendencies. I come from a family of several generations of business men and women. I have run my own business for many years now. I am not against businesses making profits. Not at all.
However, I do get a bit miffed when people call markets where the goods are protected by government granted monopolies "free markets." I get even more miffed when people selling such goods call on the government to "let the markets decide" when others call for the government to reign in their abuses.
[If you don't like the rules, your free speech allows you to lobby, protest, or heavan forbid not consume.]
Gotta love that free speech! Hey, perhaps I can even grow my own...
So, after all this... I like free markets. Goods protected by copyrights or patents do not take part in free markets. Do free market champions believe that the free market can come up with a better solution to the problem of funding innovators than the government granting of monopolies? If so, I have not seen them doing so widely. I am happy in many ways with the concept of copyrights and patents, just not with a lot of the current practice.
[Remember, in a capitalist society, 'market forces' are meant to regulate the efficiency of the market.
What we are seeing now is the free market, trying to recorrect its inefficiency (loss of profits).]
There may be 'market forces', but, in areas where the "product" is protected by grants of copyright or patent, we certainly do not have the "free market" you refer to. This is not the "free market, trying to recorrect its inefficiency." These are markets where the goods have government granted monopolies protecting them.
"secondly it is unlikely to happen, as the largest companies and hence the largest lobbyists have only their self-interest of profits in mind,"
Indeed, but we could at least start calling them on it when they spout free market concerns when people call for government to reign them in in their abuses and almost none of their products are "free market" products to begin with. This is for those where this fact applies.
Also, finding ways to turn their natural tendencies against their natural tendencies could help.
"Patent law is very bad for innovation and competiton and will thus only help to stifle an otherwise successful competitive free market capitalist economy."
The things is, things protected by copyright or patent laws don't participate in Free Market economies. They participate in economies based on government granted and government protected monopolies. This is by their very nature. Why is this so hard for the general public to see?
Do you not believe that the successful competitive free market capitalist economy can come up with a better solution to the payment for creative works than a government granted monopoly?
It seems that for my whole life I have been under the mistaken impression that I am a valid subset of everyone! Now I come across this article and my beliefs are shattered!
"That's pretty pitiful, that you've placed so much of your self-respect on your refusal and pride in not wearing a suit and tie for a meeting that involves your expertise."
Oh, you reach too far. My self respect is in no way tied to what I wear or don't wear. Nor does my respect for others depend on what they wear or don't wear.
To start again:
Amazing.
Call it what you will. These days I don't even own a suit that fits.
Just FYI. I am not a "long haired freaky people" and I have never worn a ponytail.
That said, I am happy to do business with people in three piece suits and people in greasy overalls. I try to dress clean and neat each day. I am generally jeans (short or long depending on weather) and a buttondown or polo shirt with a collar and boat shoes.
I can be in a meeting one hour and under tables or in cielings pulling wires the next.
If someone is so fixated on dress that my dress prevents them from doing business with me, so be it. So far, there is enough of the other business around that it has not prevented me from earning a living so far. Since I am not gung ho to get rich, this is not an issue for me.
I don't actually think I have lost any business as a result of my dress, but if I have, I am sure those who got it instead are happy about that and that's cool.
"People will judge you more by the decision to underdress than the actual underdressing."
And that my friend is their problem to work through and overcome and not mine. I do not dress a particular way in order to provoke people mind you.
'the lax dress code of the open-source community is one of the reasons behind the software's slow uptake in commercial environments.'
Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, my response would be that if the clean cut, three piece suit set did more of the actual important work on the big projects, then they would be more visible and this would not be such a big problem.
Therefore, it is the clean cut, three piece suit set who are really holding back the uptake of Free Software in commercial environments.
Assuming what we did, what is wrong with the reasoning that followed?
"(note the absence of the obligitory ???? since there's no mystery involved)"
Noted. You are hereby informed that the posting of business plans without the obligatory ???? is not allowed on slashdot and never has been. Please get control of yourself!
While I support Free Software, I am not dealing with that here.
Let MSOffice running on Windows support ODF as one of the supported FILE FORMATS, along with rtf, html, wpd? and whatever else they want. Simple as that.
Why would they do that? So they can communicate and deal with the documents their state produces more easily.
State adopts ODF as a file format.
They can:
1. Sue the state to block said adoption.
2. Sue their vendor to support said FILE FORMAT.
I am just asking how come the laws can allow them to do 1 and yet not allow them to do 2.
I am not asking which one makes more sense for them to do as a part of this particular question.
1. A government entity adopts an open document format. (In this case ODF.)
2. The "Blind Community" sues the government entity to prevent the adoption of the file format because at this point in time, all of the programs that support the format are not "accessible" and their preferred and accessible program does not support the format.
3. If the "accessibility laws" are capable of blocking the adoption of open document formats, why can they not be capable enough to force the support of such formats?
"not the free-market choice to reject those programs for use in public projects."
Please don't talk to me about the free-market (which I tend to like) in connection with a market created by the government granting of monopoly rights (such as copyrights and patents) which is anything but free by definition.
[ Disability legisation has made commercial developers (especially MS) at least consider accessibilty.
I'm not saying that is right or wrong, but that is where we are. If you force a switch to other platforms and applications, you do need to ensure that at least the current (and pretty awful) level of accessibility is maintained.]
Ah, but that is the wrong thing to force. (at first?)
Why can't the same disability legisation force commercial vendors to adopt the ODF as a supported format?
how about angles to force ODF support in MS Office in the meantime?
Does the blind community already have the laws on their side needed to do this?
1. State requires open document formats for the benefit of all citizens.
2. Copyrights and patents are state granted. (State as in The State not as in a state.)
3. You support open document standards as per the state requirements or you lose your copyrights and patents used in the programs that could support those formats and wont.
4. Note, when wordperfect was the big boy on the block, MS did not seem to have to big an issue with supporting wordperfect documents.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude,
if you could just rewrite this in the classic four step outline, you may get the grant.
1.
2.
3. ???
4. Profit
I have taken the liberty of giving you the standard template and have even filled out parts 3 and 4 for you. Good luck. If you get the grant, I am available for sub-contracting in any number of key areas.
all the best,
drew
-----
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/187924
Bahamian Nonsense
[Oh, I've read it. I've release certain things under BSD, because when I give something away, I really give it away, not 'give it away but you've got to promise me shit in return.']
Ah, but when I release stuff under the GPL or under a CC BY-SA I am not giving it away, but then neither are you fully giving it away if you put it under the BSD, you would need to somehow put it in the public domain to really give it away.
So, you can distribute the software you create under terms way more restrictive than the GPL and that is cool, but if I distribute the software I write under the GPL, I am some sort of bad guy? I am not sure I follow.
(Sorry if I set up a straw man to fight unintentionally.)
all the best,
drew
-----
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/187924
Bahamian Nonsense
I wonder if these same people would build on libraries or deploy on OSes that required them to pay a percentage of the revenue from their software "product"?
Hey, why not license your software such that the user has to pay a percentage of their revenue as a yearly license fee?
1. a. Don't write it unless you get a fair compensation for the labour involved.
1. b. Or unless you need to use the functionality to make your "life" better.
2. In the case of 1.b. - can you get done quicker starting with already written "Free Software" - if so, no problem.
See how easy this really is? (I know I am posting this in a reply to your post when it is really answering some of the posts further up the tree. Down the tree?)
You will see a lot of straw men being knocked over if you read many posts in this thread.
all the best,
drew
----
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/187924
Bahamian Nonsense
[When I write a piece of open source code, that takes a bit of my time too and is sometimes boring. By RMS's logic, I should charge each user some sort of nuissance fee so that my time is better spent on more "productive pursuits" or somesuch.]
Nope, not a good parallel. You can easily charge a fee to the one asking you to write that piece of code and get closer.
Also, nothing stops you from charging for every "handover" that you make. (Or am I missing something?) Now, why would they pay for his autograph and not for a "handover" from you? Perhaps if you gave an autographed certificate of "handover" with each one you might stand more of a chance? I don't know...
all the best,
drew
-----
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
I find it interesting that so many people who believe in Free Markets (hint, you can count me in that number) do not think the Free Market can find a solution to this problem (hint, I am probably not in this number) but that the government is needed to step in and grant monopoly rights or art and the like would cease to be made.
[They'd wait for him to perform, tape it and distribute the song that way, without giving him a cent.]
And exactly how would they do this? The artist would have a EULA on the back of his concert tickets making this illegal. Let's hear what they would do instead.
[The balance is way off. But that doesn't mean we have to throw the right out, we just have to put it back into balance.]
This is true, perhaps not for the reasons you hold, but do you have any sure fire ways to do this in a reasonable time frame? You don't have to throw the right out, but you could without taking one of those inalienable rights from anyone.
all the best,
drew
No problem.
One thing though. Since the markets in question already have the government deeply involved in them, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the government step in to fix problems that arise, there being no free market at work to fix the issues.
all the best,
drew
-----
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123
Tings - a copyleft novel (first draft)
[Interesting Point, but I never said free market, because it's not a free market.]
If you check your post again carefully, I think you will see that I quoted you fairly accurately. You mention 'market forces' and also the "free market" (different paragraphs.)
Don't jump to too many conclusion about my hippie tendencies. I come from a family of several generations of business men and women. I have run my own business for many years now. I am not against businesses making profits. Not at all.
However, I do get a bit miffed when people call markets where the goods are protected by government granted monopolies "free markets." I get even more miffed when people selling such goods call on the government to "let the markets decide" when others call for the government to reign in their abuses.
[If you don't like the rules, your free speech allows you to lobby, protest, or heavan forbid not consume.]
Gotta love that free speech! Hey, perhaps I can even grow my own...
So, after all this... I like free markets. Goods protected by copyrights or patents do not take part in free markets. Do free market champions believe that the free market can come up with a better solution to the problem of funding innovators than the government granting of monopolies? If so, I have not seen them doing so widely. I am happy in many ways with the concept of copyrights and patents, just not with a lot of the current practice.
all the best,
drew
-----
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/187924
Bahamian Nonsense
[Remember, in a capitalist society, 'market forces' are meant to regulate the efficiency of the market.
What we are seeing now is the free market, trying to recorrect its inefficiency (loss of profits).]
There may be 'market forces', but, in areas where the "product" is protected by grants of copyright or patent, we certainly do not have the "free market" you refer to. This is not the "free market, trying to recorrect its inefficiency." These are markets where the goods have government granted monopolies protecting them.
Just food for thought.
all the best,
drew
----
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/187924
Bahamian Nonsense
[I can't remember what they're called though.]
Ah, but they are so effective, they don't need to be called. They do the calling. ~;-)
all the best,
drew
---
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/187924
Bahamian Nonsense
"The intent of a law and what it actually allows are often totally separate things."
True, and:
The stated intent of a law and the true intent of a law are often totally separate things.
Another statement for your consideration.
all the best,
drew
---
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/187924
Some Bahamian Nonsense
"secondly it is unlikely to happen, as the largest companies and hence the largest lobbyists have only their self-interest of profits in mind,"
Indeed, but we could at least start calling them on it when they spout free market concerns when people call for government to reign them in in their abuses and almost none of their products are "free market" products to begin with. This is for those where this fact applies.
Also, finding ways to turn their natural tendencies against their natural tendencies could help.
all the best,
drew
-----
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/187924
Some Bahamian Nonsense for the enjoyment of all.
"Patent law is very bad for innovation and competiton and will thus only help to stifle an otherwise successful competitive free market capitalist economy."
The things is, things protected by copyright or patent laws don't participate in Free Market economies. They participate in economies based on government granted and government protected monopolies. This is by their very nature. Why is this so hard for the general public to see?
Do you not believe that the successful competitive free market capitalist economy can come up with a better solution to the payment for creative works than a government granted monopoly?
all the best,
drew
-----
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/187924
Bahamian Nonsense
It seems that for my whole life I have been under the mistaken impression that I am a valid subset of everyone! Now I come across this article and my beliefs are shattered!
Whatever shall I do now?
all the best,
drew
"That's pretty pitiful, that you've placed so much of your self-respect on your refusal and pride in not wearing a suit and tie for a meeting that involves your expertise."
Oh, you reach too far. My self respect is in no way tied to what I wear or don't wear. Nor does my respect for others depend on what they wear or don't wear.
To start again:
Amazing.
Call it what you will. These days I don't even own a suit that fits.
Just FYI. I am not a "long haired freaky people" and I have never worn a ponytail.
That said, I am happy to do business with people in three piece suits and people in greasy overalls. I try to dress clean and neat each day. I am generally jeans (short or long depending on weather) and a buttondown or polo shirt with a collar and boat shoes.
I can be in a meeting one hour and under tables or in cielings pulling wires the next.
If someone is so fixated on dress that my dress prevents them from doing business with me, so be it. So far, there is enough of the other business around that it has not prevented me from earning a living so far. Since I am not gung ho to get rich, this is not an issue for me.
I don't actually think I have lost any business as a result of my dress, but if I have, I am sure those who got it instead are happy about that and that's cool.
"People will judge you more by the decision to underdress than the actual underdressing."
And that my friend is their problem to work through and overcome and not mine. I do not dress a particular way in order to provoke people mind you.
all the best,
drew
"It's hard to dispute empirical research... you dress for your audience or risk losing them."
You just have to be willing to lose them. You pays your money and you takes your picks.
If you have to change so much that you lose in order to win, you may as well not change and lose anyway. At least we will lose with your self respect.
So, when is it recommended for the clean cut, three pice suit set to don sandals and a ponytail wig to dress for such an audience?
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145
'the lax dress code of the open-source community is one of the reasons behind the software's slow uptake in commercial environments.'
Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, my response would be that if the clean cut, three piece suit set did more of the actual important work on the big projects, then they would be more visible and this would not be such a big problem.
Therefore, it is the clean cut, three piece suit set who are really holding back the uptake of Free Software in commercial environments.
Assuming what we did, what is wrong with the reasoning that followed?
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145
"(note the absence of the obligitory ???? since there's no mystery involved)"
Noted. You are hereby informed that the posting of business plans without the obligatory ???? is not allowed on slashdot and never has been. Please get control of yourself!
all the best,
drew
"but the free market exists to prevent that"
Exactly what free market are you talking about here? One of the regulated free markets?
all the best,
drew
Are you purposefully mixing things up?
While I support Free Software, I am not dealing with that here.
Let MSOffice running on Windows support ODF as one of the supported FILE FORMATS, along with rtf, html, wpd? and whatever else they want. Simple as that.
Why would they do that? So they can communicate and deal with the documents their state produces more easily.
State adopts ODF as a file format.
They can:
1. Sue the state to block said adoption.
2. Sue their vendor to support said FILE FORMAT.
I am just asking how come the laws can allow them to do 1 and yet not allow them to do 2.
I am not asking which one makes more sense for them to do as a part of this particular question.
all the best,
drew
You misunderstood me again.
I am talking this:
1. A government entity adopts an open document format. (In this case ODF.)
2. The "Blind Community" sues the government entity to prevent the adoption of the file format because at this point in time, all of the programs that support the format are not "accessible" and their preferred and accessible program does not support the format.
3. If the "accessibility laws" are capable of blocking the adoption of open document formats, why can they not be capable enough to force the support of such formats?
"not the free-market choice to reject those programs for use in public projects."
Please don't talk to me about the free-market (which I tend to like) in connection with a market created by the government granting of monopoly rights (such as copyrights and patents) which is anything but free by definition.
all the best,
drew
Guy 2: "Fantastic! Just what I was thingking."
3. ????
4. Profit!
all the best,
drew
If this is really the case, then how can the state pass laws that make adoption by the state of certain copyrighted programs illegal?
Also, how exactly / what wording in, the convention prevents what I am asking?
all the best,
drew
Can you elaborate?
Seems if the accessiblity laws would permit the blocking of odf adoption, they should also be able to be used to require it.
all the best,
drew
[ Disability legisation has made commercial developers (especially MS) at least consider accessibilty.
I'm not saying that is right or wrong, but that is where we are. If you force a switch to other platforms and applications, you do need to ensure that at least the current (and pretty awful) level of accessibility is maintained.]
Ah, but that is the wrong thing to force. (at first?)
Why can't the same disability legisation force commercial vendors to adopt the ODF as a supported format?
all the best,
drew
So,
how about angles to force ODF support in MS Office in the meantime?
Does the blind community already have the laws on their side needed to do this?
1. State requires open document formats for the benefit of all citizens.
2. Copyrights and patents are state granted. (State as in The State not as in a state.)
3. You support open document standards as per the state requirements or you lose your copyrights and patents used in the programs that could support those formats and wont.
4. Note, when wordperfect was the big boy on the block, MS did not seem to have to big an issue with supporting wordperfect documents.
all the best,
drew