Can you get a statement from the lawyers of some big copyright holding firm to support this view? From some well respected legal entity?
If in your view copy+distribute is illegal, and copy alone is legal, where does that put distribute alone? (Of copies made at the direction of the copyright holder.)
"The research interests could exist on more than one level."
Notice I said that.
"Taking that line, one might argue that they're facilitating others' research, sure.
But that's not actually the same thing as using these texts for research."
Now perhaps they are doing research on efficient indexing and cross referencing techniques on large bodies of text written by independant authors over hundreds of years.
Perhaps they are doing research on patterns of referencing and perhaps plagerism in those same texts.
Perhaps they are doing "meta-research" on the research patterns and usage of researchers in said large bodies of text.
They may indeed be doing their own research. (I do not maintain that they are, just that I see no reason to claim that they are not.)
all the best,
drew -- http://www.ourmedia.org/node/57503 Paper Plane Video at ourmedia.org This video is released under a Creative Commons BY-SA license
Not to be argumentative, but isn't that redundant? If it already illegal to reproduce, why do we need it to be illegal to reproduce+distribute.
On top of that, I have seen discussions lately to the effect that it can be illegal to distribute even if you purchase legal copies. I would like to learn more about this.
"If I want to distribute an author's book I need to ask permission."
Can you or anyone else reading this define for us what is meant legally by distributing a book? Does the author selling a book to you at wholsale automatically give you the right to sell (distribute?) it at retail? Or would you still need the author's permission after having bought a thousand copies?
Perhaps he is indicating that the having the right to make copies of a work does not necessarily the right to distribute said copies whereas having the copyright on the work would?
"In the UK the rear car is always liable in rear-ending incidents."
I am from the Bahamas and we have the same rule. (owever, if the party in the rear has the right connections, I think the party in front can be charged.)
It makes sense, but I have an issue with it when proper road rules are not enforced. In heavy two way traffic on a two lane road, if you observe a proper following distance, cars to your rear will be constantly overtaking you in dangerous spots where they should not do so putting you in danger. Cars on side streets will be pulling out in front of you where there really is not enough room causing you to hit the brakes. This too is dangerous. In fact, it can seem that the least dangerous of the three choices would be to follow too closely and try to remain hyper alert. This is certainly not a good choice. You could of course get off the road until traffic is not so heavy.
"Not if the current crowd keeps running things. As you can see from the overall discussion, even the hint of criticism causing most of these people to deny everything, hurl insults, and generally ignore the elephant in the living room."
What I think you may be missing is that the current crowd is going to keep running things. Those complaining have no leverage. Now if they want leverage, they need to start developing the code, or they need to fund the developement of the code.
So, the mix I was talking about includes allocating a percentage of software dollars and specifically funding promising copyleft software, or initiating the development of needed copyleft software.
Going back to your "open standards" thought, it would also help to STOP purchasing any software whose main file format is not an open, unencumbered fotmat.
"After all, when it comes to software development, nearly everybody makes a Windows version first and maybe they then get around to making a Mac version. Linux is a distant, distant third, with percentages so low they're not worth even mentioning."
What percentage of all of these developed programs actually have a primary format that is an open standard?
One of the problems I think exist with the commercial players in the Free software space is that few take a firm stance on Free software only. Why do people need to move from one company making a lock in play to another who may be trying to do the same?
None the less, if your freedom is important, it behooves you to persue a Free software path even if it costs more in the short term. Even if it means inventing a whole new software market.
"Not sure that this is a viable model if we extended it to every business in existence."
It doesn't need to work for every business in existence, especially not all at once. It just needs to work where it can.
Free software is working for the developers of Free software and there is this hugh pool or wealth sitting out there, available under generous licensing terms and often at excellent bargains. If businesses cannot figure how to use that wealth profitably, that is their loss, the developers are already profiting from their development work.
"Again, the "free" aspect is no side issue, the way I see it. OSS essentially works as well as it does because lots of people are willing to help for no money in return - not necessarily all the people working on it, but a lot of them."
Think upside the box... Imagine we live on a street. One neighbour grows carrots, one grows tomatoes, one grows onions, one grows beans. The thing about these veggies is that they are special veggies. Whenever you give some away, there is just as much there to give away the next time. Now, when the people on the street pass the vegetables around, there is no money involved.
One of the dynamics of Free software is very similar. We are making things and giving them to each other. So no money changes hands. This does not mean tat we are only giving and not receiving. It does not mean that we are not getting a great deal.
"As for the non-free software not maintained properly, of course you're right. That's why I talked about open standards."
You are correct in a way. The problem is, as we can see from how things are right now and how they have been for a long time, in the non-Free world, it is often in the vendors best interest (as they see it) to have non-open standards. As we also see, purchasers often lack the vision or the discipline to only purchase products that rigorously and willfully and preferentially support open standards. (Patent free and otherwise unencumbered standards at that.)
If buyers can aquire this discipline and vision, it will be a short step for them to also insist on only Free code. That is not to say, only free code.
1. Pay through the nose for closed-source commercial software. 2. Pay through the nose for open source commercial software. 3. Use a free but poorly supported OSS solution."
Problem is, if you stick with option one, which you seem to be saying is your inclination, even though you are not happy with it, I predict that things will not get better, especially if options 2 and 3 did not exist, or cease to exist.
Going with a mix of options 2 and 3 or even 1, 2 and 3, may cost a bit more initially, but could result in things getting much better down the road.
To me, it all comes down to how much freedom is worth to the different players and if they can forsee the dangers in the non-Free play. Also, in their own creativity in working together with those of similar needs to achieve that freedom.
"I've got a news flash for you: 99% of the computing public are not developers and have no idea how to develop nor an inclination to do so. Therefore the old "if you don't like it, write your own app!" argument is also short-sighted."
Free Software is not all about free software. If you don't want to write your own, you can pay for some to be written.
You can certainly use some of the world class Free software that exists and take the savings and fund some promising Free Software. Freedom is expensive. But it is less expensive than non-Freedom.
"And FOSS proponents wonder why Microsoft is so successful and profitable making mediocre software."
I seriously doubt that the reason you give is why they are so profitable.
"If they want to be paid, they must first come forward with a marketable product."
No, it is not so that they must. They certainly are free to do so, but there is no imperitive. They write the code. It works for them, they are in a better positioin after having written it than before. That is good enough. Perhaps not good enough for you, but then, you admitedly are not paying them to do anything for you.
That said, I think you and a lot of other businessmen and government officials and NGO big boys are not exploring all the options open to you in the market and are going with the easy status quo.
What is to stop, say, the American Locksmiths Association, from taking 10% of its yearly membership fee and funding the development of GPLed software for their industry?
What if each city Government took 10% of its yearly budget for Office Suite software and funded the developemnt of a GPLed office suite to meet their needs? Granted, it would cost more at first as they would be paying 110% for a while, but how long would it take before they could drop the 100% and just spend the 10% ongoing?
What about your industry? Why does it not see how doing things like this could benefit the bottom line long term. So, you guys are the business men and the coders aren't. (?) Be businessmen and fund the development of GPLed software that fits your needs in a businesslike manner that pleases you. Your bottom line will thank you in a few years as will a large part of the world. (Perhaps.)
Yes, but what would a semi-reasonable company do in this situation:
Employee starts with GPLed code originally written and released by someone else. Employee improves and or adds to this code on is own time.
So, the company owns the copyrights to that employee's code but they can do a limited number of things with it. They can let it be distributed under the GPL or they can forbid its distribution. What they cannot do is distribute it under another license. Does anyone see any other options?
"And that's the very nature of OSS: you can't blame the developers for not maintaining their projects as much as they should, because, well, they have a life to lead and money to make to sustain it!"
Well gee, perhaps it is up to the users who need such software to be maintained in a "professional" manner to find some way to fund the developers in a professional manner. The fact that the software is Free is a side issue.
Lots of non-Free software is not maintained properly either, especially those programs from companies that have gone bust or been aquired and their software put on a shelf.
"Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup"."
Simple way to supply that icon for debian systems:
---
#!/bin/bash
sudo aptitude install ardour-gtk
---
supply that file in a tar format pre chmod'ed. How's that for a first cut.
Besides, how long will it take for new users to get accustomed to typing aptitude install foo or apt-get install foo?
[tag]Besides, windows is so confusing, sometimes the icon is called setup and sometimes it is called install. Sometimes the software is supplied in self extracting exes and sometimes in zips. Sometimes vendors make it difficult to find the full version of the software and only want you to download an installer. Sometimes there are some sort of text files that you are supposed to actually READ after the files come out of the zip, or whatever. Then sometimes, you are HIGHLY recommedned to uninstall any older versions before clicking on those variable icons. Also, sometimes when setting up new hardware they want you to be sure and run the installation software BEFORE connecting or installing the hardware for the first time. (I could go on.)[/tag]
I will leave it to the reader to determine for themselves what [tag] should be.
I do make my stuff available for people to make money from. That is a hugh part of my point.
I started makeing my stuff available in this way after getting involverd with the whole Free Software thing and wanting to say thanks or contribute in some way.
Also, I think non-commercial is dangerous as courts and lawyers have a strange way of considering things commercial that regular people might not. And these days, copyright violations can carry large fines and jail time.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you get a statement from the lawyers of some big copyright holding firm to support this view? From some well respected legal entity?
If in your view copy+distribute is illegal, and copy alone is legal, where does that put distribute alone? (Of copies made at the direction of the copyright holder.)
all the best,
drew
"The research interests could exist on more than one level."
Notice I said that.
"Taking that line, one might argue that they're facilitating others' research, sure.
But that's not actually the same thing as using these texts for research."
Now perhaps they are doing research on efficient indexing and cross referencing techniques on large bodies of text written by independant authors over hundreds of years.
Perhaps they are doing research on patterns of referencing and perhaps plagerism in those same texts.
Perhaps they are doing "meta-research" on the research patterns and usage of researchers in said large bodies of text.
They may indeed be doing their own research. (I do not maintain that they are, just that I see no reason to claim that they are not.)
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/57503
Paper Plane Video at ourmedia.org
This video is released under a Creative Commons BY-SA license
"Sorry, I meant reproducing+distributing."
Not to be argumentative, but isn't that redundant? If it already illegal to reproduce, why do we need it to be illegal to reproduce+distribute.
On top of that, I have seen discussions lately to the effect that it can be illegal to distribute even if you purchase legal copies. I would like to learn more about this.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/58805
The Beat Meet - a zotzBrothers CC BY-SA story at ourmedia.org
"or research"
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=dragirl
Google could easily be doing this for purposes of research and could claim that.
It is not like having a searchable index of every book in print is useless for research purposes.
That said, I have no idea if they are actually doing it for purposes of research.
The research interests could exist on more than one level.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
There's A Girl
"If I want to distribute an author's book I need to ask permission."
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=JohnConst antakisdrewRobertsRainwaterBlues
Can you or anyone else reading this define for us what is meant legally by distributing a book? Does the author selling a book to you at wholsale automatically give you the right to sell (distribute?) it at retail? Or would you still need the author's permission after having bought a thousand copies?
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
Rainwater Blues
Perhaps he is indicating that the having the right to make copies of a work does not necessarily the right to distribute said copies whereas having the copyright on the work would?
A %22drew%20Roberts%22
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3
"In the UK the rear car is always liable in rear-ending incidents."
I am from the Bahamas and we have the same rule. (owever, if the party in the rear has the right connections, I think the party in front can be charged.)
It makes sense, but I have an issue with it when proper road rules are not enforced. In heavy two way traffic on a two lane road, if you observe a proper following distance, cars to your rear will be constantly overtaking you in dangerous spots where they should not do so putting you in danger. Cars on side streets will be pulling out in front of you where there really is not enough room causing you to hit the brakes. This too is dangerous. In fact, it can seem that the least dangerous of the three choices would be to follow too closely and try to remain hyper alert. This is certainly not a good choice. You could of course get off the road until traffic is not so heavy.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/58805
The Beat Meet
"Not if the current crowd keeps running things. As you can see from the overall discussion, even the hint of criticism causing most of these people to deny everything, hurl insults, and generally ignore the elephant in the living room."
What I think you may be missing is that the current crowd is going to keep running things. Those complaining have no leverage. Now if they want leverage, they need to start developing the code, or they need to fund the developement of the code.
So, the mix I was talking about includes allocating a percentage of software dollars and specifically funding promising copyleft software, or initiating the development of needed copyleft software.
Going back to your "open standards" thought, it would also help to STOP purchasing any software whose main file format is not an open, unencumbered fotmat.
"After all, when it comes to software development, nearly everybody makes a Windows version first and maybe they then get around to making a Mac version. Linux is a distant, distant third, with percentages so low they're not worth even mentioning."
What percentage of all of these developed programs actually have a primary format that is an open standard?
One of the problems I think exist with the commercial players in the Free software space is that few take a firm stance on Free software only. Why do people need to move from one company making a lock in play to another who may be trying to do the same?
None the less, if your freedom is important, it behooves you to persue a Free software path even if it costs more in the short term. Even if it means inventing a whole new software market.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/40272
Island Scenes - Clouds over Nassau
"Not sure that this is a viable model if we extended it to every business in existence."
It doesn't need to work for every business in existence, especially not all at once. It just needs to work where it can.
Free software is working for the developers of Free software and there is this hugh pool or wealth sitting out there, available under generous licensing terms and often at excellent bargains. If businesses cannot figure how to use that wealth profitably, that is their loss, the developers are already profiting from their development work.
"Again, the "free" aspect is no side issue, the way I see it. OSS essentially works as well as it does because lots of people are willing to help for no money in return - not necessarily all the people working on it, but a lot of them."
Think upside the box... Imagine we live on a street. One neighbour grows carrots, one grows tomatoes, one grows onions, one grows beans. The thing about these veggies is that they are special veggies. Whenever you give some away, there is just as much there to give away the next time. Now, when the people on the street pass the vegetables around, there is no money involved.
One of the dynamics of Free software is very similar. We are making things and giving them to each other. So no money changes hands. This does not mean tat we are only giving and not receiving. It does not mean that we are not getting a great deal.
"As for the non-free software not maintained properly, of course you're right. That's why I talked about open standards."
You are correct in a way. The problem is, as we can see from how things are right now and how they have been for a long time, in the non-Free world, it is often in the vendors best interest (as they see it) to have non-open standards. As we also see, purchasers often lack the vision or the discipline to only purchase products that rigorously and willfully and preferentially support open standards. (Patent free and otherwise unencumbered standards at that.)
If buyers can aquire this discipline and vision, it will be a short step for them to also insist on only Free code. That is not to say, only free code.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/44645
Island Scenes
"Look, my current options are as follows:
1. Pay through the nose for closed-source commercial software.
2. Pay through the nose for open source commercial software.
3. Use a free but poorly supported OSS solution."
Problem is, if you stick with option one, which you seem to be saying is your inclination, even though you are not happy with it, I predict that things will not get better, especially if options 2 and 3 did not exist, or cease to exist.
Going with a mix of options 2 and 3 or even 1, 2 and 3, may cost a bit more initially, but could result in things getting much better down the road.
To me, it all comes down to how much freedom is worth to the different players and if they can forsee the dangers in the non-Free play. Also, in their own creativity in working together with those of similar needs to achieve that freedom.
all the best,
drew
--
"I've got a news flash for you: 99% of the computing public are not developers and have no idea how to develop nor an inclination to do so. Therefore the old "if you don't like it, write your own app!" argument is also short-sighted."
Free Software is not all about free software. If you don't want to write your own, you can pay for some to be written.
You can certainly use some of the world class Free software that exists and take the savings and fund some promising Free Software. Freedom is expensive. But it is less expensive than non-Freedom.
"And FOSS proponents wonder why Microsoft is so successful and profitable making mediocre software."
I seriously doubt that the reason you give is why they are so profitable.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/40737
Island Scenes
"If they want to be paid, they must first come forward with a marketable product."
No, it is not so that they must. They certainly are free to do so, but there is no imperitive. They write the code. It works for them, they are in a better positioin after having written it than before. That is good enough. Perhaps not good enough for you, but then, you admitedly are not paying them to do anything for you.
That said, I think you and a lot of other businessmen and government officials and NGO big boys are not exploring all the options open to you in the market and are going with the easy status quo.
What is to stop, say, the American Locksmiths Association, from taking 10% of its yearly membership fee and funding the development of GPLed software for their industry?
What if each city Government took 10% of its yearly budget for Office Suite software and funded the developemnt of a GPLed office suite to meet their needs? Granted, it would cost more at first as they would be paying 110% for a while, but how long would it take before they could drop the 100% and just spend the 10% ongoing?
What about your industry? Why does it not see how doing things like this could benefit the bottom line long term. So, you guys are the business men and the coders aren't. (?) Be businessmen and fund the development of GPLed software that fits your needs in a businesslike manner that pleases you. Your bottom line will thank you in a few years as will a large part of the world. (Perhaps.)
all the best,
drew
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/41879
Island Scenes
Yes, but what would a semi-reasonable company do in this situation:
Employee starts with GPLed code originally written and released by someone else. Employee improves and or adds to this code on is own time.
So, the company owns the copyrights to that employee's code but they can do a limited number of things with it. They can let it be distributed under the GPL or they can forbid its distribution. What they cannot do is distribute it under another license. Does anyone see any other options?
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/53984
da bubble man video
"What bothers me about writing open source code is simple: Where is my money."
Simple, get paid before you write the Free Software.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/57503
Paper Plane Video
"And that's the very nature of OSS: you can't blame the developers for not maintaining their projects as much as they should, because, well, they have a life to lead and money to make to sustain it!"
Well gee, perhaps it is up to the users who need such software to be maintained in a "professional" manner to find some way to fund the developers in a professional manner. The fact that the software is Free is a side issue.
Lots of non-Free software is not maintained properly either, especially those programs from companies that have gone bust or been aquired and their software put on a shelf.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/57503
Paper Plane Video
When They give me all of the benefits I get from a paper book now PLUS all te benefits that can come with digital, searchable, shareable text.
Not too tall an order if the players have a mind to give us what we want and not try to force us to accept what they want.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/57503
Let's not confuse people with the catalogue power of synaptic, ok?
We cannot allow the masses to discover the hugh trove of wealth that is the debian repositories.
Insert the bard's quote on ignorance.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/53984
"Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup"."
Simple way to supply that icon for debian systems:
---
#!/bin/bash
sudo aptitude install ardour-gtk
---
supply that file in a tar format pre chmod'ed. How's that for a first cut.
Besides, how long will it take for new users to get accustomed to typing aptitude install foo or apt-get install foo?
[tag]Besides, windows is so confusing, sometimes the icon is called setup and sometimes it is called install. Sometimes the software is supplied in self extracting exes and sometimes in zips. Sometimes vendors make it difficult to find the full version of the software and only want you to download an installer. Sometimes there are some sort of text files that you are supposed to actually READ after the files come out of the zip, or whatever. Then sometimes, you are HIGHLY recommedned to uninstall any older versions before clicking on those variable icons. Also, sometimes when setting up new hardware they want you to be sure and run the installation software BEFORE connecting or installing the hardware for the first time. (I could go on.)[/tag]
I will leave it to the reader to determine for themselves what [tag] should be.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/57503
What I need to know is if they are controlled by Dartmouth Basic.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/57503
The Spanish Astronomers featuring Don Quixote de la Mancha, Don Juan, and Don Diego.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/57503
paper plane video creative commons by-sa
I have played with that effect, but could not get it to behave properly. Perhaps that is a result of my ignorance.
all the best,
drew
Scrolling, slides, fade ins and outs. Things like that. I have not done any video work since back in the late 80s or early 90s on a friends amiga.
I remember doing things like this.
Here is a video I just put up at ourmedia:
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/57503
all the best,
drew
OK, thanks for the hint, so what would the procedure be for getting various title effects overlaid onto your video?
Can you give or point to a simple howto?
all the best,
drew
--
URL:http://www.ourmedia.org/node/53984
Anyone know of anything for doing decent titles? Or is Cinelerra's ability in this area improved.
Anyone used to use the amiga 2x00 with, what was it, the video toaster?
all the best,
drew
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/53984
"Making your own stuff, or paying for it, instead of leeching from the efforts of others?"
A %22drew%20Roberts%22
Please, you may be a leech, I can't say. I try to contribute, why would you make such an unfounded accusation?
"Why should they give you their stuff for free for you to make money from, but you won't give me your stuff for free?"
Did you look at the links I gave?
Also check this link:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3
I do make my stuff available for people to make money from. That is a hugh part of my point.
I started makeing my stuff available in this way after getting involverd with the whole Free Software thing and wanting to say thanks or contribute in some way.
Also, I think non-commercial is dangerous as courts and lawyers have a strange way of considering things commercial that regular people might not. And these days, copyright violations can carry large fines and jail time.
all the best,
drew