The wrench actually has to make contact with the cog to do any good.
For example, someone other than the party it was sold to can't just swipe a copy of the code and redistribute it, even if its gpl.
All this is irrelevent to the original discussion - why some people are getting upset about the supposed hypocrisy of Stallman sell his autograph - to which I had pointed out that the gpl allows for selling at any price you want, provided you have a market.
In the case of high-priced software that makes use of gpl libraries, you can be sure that if both the vendor and the purchaser respect the conditions of the gpl (source code, svp), that the purchaser isn't going to redistribute, out of enlightened self-interest.
Think for 2 seconds - businesses do NOT buy custom software to sell to their competitors. What happems after a bankruptcy is also similarly constrained - selling it off at a discount impairs the value not only of the software but of the business itself, meaning that the trusteel realizes less for the creditors.
The creditors won't allow it, because its not in their self-interest.
Businesses don't get to seel their stuff off in a bankruptcy - that's what the trustee does, for their creditors' benefit. So businesses aren't buying assets with an eye on their value in bankruptcy.
So the original business paid $100k for it with the intent of getting a leg up on the competition, they're not going to sell it once for $10k, and certainly not to their competitors, because not only do they now have an impairment of its value of $90k, they also now have someone who can sell it to others for $5k a crack, AND they've lost the advantage they bought it for in the first place.
This is perhaps the worst Slashdot post ever. Let's see:
- Basic screenshot show that has been linked on the articles some dozen times already
- Trolling about how some ancient crap hardware no one should be using ever anywhere anymore can't run FC5
- Most of the text is in blog article that requires registration
Nobody's defending paedophiles... get over it (and yourself). The guy sponsoring this is a politician.
We're not in China... the whole "claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public" is bullshit, as is the politician behind the lawsuit. Go after the producers. Oh, wait... that would mean admitting its a job for the police... so much for an opportunity for wrapping himself in the flag over an apple-pe issue.
Hey, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - lets sue the politicians - they're always "acting negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public".
Not to take away from what he's done in terms of pop culture, but it would have been better if he'd stuck to the original idea. The first two episodes of the prequil smack of trying to recapture the ET franchise.
But the biggest worry is that the great benefit of the open-source approach is also its great undoing. Its advantage is that anyone can contribute; the drawback is that sometimes just about anyone does. This leaves projects open to abuse, either by well-meaning dilettantes or intentional disrupters. Constant self-policing is required to ensure its quality.
Let's substitute "the presidency" and "the people"
But the biggest worry is that the great benefit of the presidency is also its great undoing. Its advantage is that anyone can become president; the drawback is that sometimes just about anyone does. This leaves the people open to abuse, either by well-meaning dilettantes or intentional disrupters. Constant self-policing is required to ensure its quality.
So when is the Economist going to do its share fore the "checks and balances" and pull a Colbert?
... which comes back to the point - if people think so little of it as to provide honest answers (they don't feel the need to cover up) then there are no real "losses" - these people wouln't have made a purchase if the illegal version wasn't available. They would just have found something else to do, or channel surfed, or whatever.
They have to realize that they're in competition for the consumer dollar. Let them make their product better, and lower the price of dvds to better reflect the incremental cost of supplying the movie on dvd, and they'll make out like gangbusters.
Nobody's going to bother pirating a dvd if they can buy a legit version for $5.00, and the studios will then end up making it on the volume.
The "brilliant assumption" is that people who pirate movies are going to tell the truth in a telephone survey. Did they also believe that everyone they offered a chocolate bar for their password gave a real answer?
My original argument was that the more $$$ you charge for something, the less likely the person buying is going to share it/pirate it/whatever with others. It applies to ALL software, proprietary and gpl, that business buys to obtain a competitive advantage, and moreso when there may be specific business knowledge embedded into your custom code.
Remember, this all is in context of the comment about ot being able to sell code because the gpl supposedly somehow destroys that possibility.
Then they're going to destroy their own market with their first sale - after that first sale, anyone can sell it for a "bargain price". It's not a viable business model.
Besides, NO software is useful without support. For developers, we can do our own support - for business, they have to shell out additional coin. So they buy a piece of software and are unable to use it - where's the profit for them in that? Strong incentive to buy fromthe original developer, even if he/she/they have posted ALL the code on the net free for everyone to partake, GPL'd to the hilt.
When there's a bug, it's ot about the "warm fuzzy feeling of kowing there's someone to support it" - its the ability of having YOUR problem go to the person best qualified to solve it in the shortest period of time.
think for two seconds... whoever bought it for $10k isn't going to start selling copies of it - they bought it for a reason, and that reason isn't going to be "get into the software selling bix."
Especially since the sowtware would probably have been wiped before the servers were put up for sale (confidential data, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
Dammit Jim, next time tell them its CTL+ALT+BACKSPACE !
For example, someone other than the party it was sold to can't just swipe a copy of the code and redistribute it, even if its gpl.
All this is irrelevent to the original discussion - why some people are getting upset about the supposed hypocrisy of Stallman sell his autograph - to which I had pointed out that the gpl allows for selling at any price you want, provided you have a market.
In the case of high-priced software that makes use of gpl libraries, you can be sure that if both the vendor and the purchaser respect the conditions of the gpl (source code, svp), that the purchaser isn't going to redistribute, out of enlightened self-interest.
The creditors won't allow it, because its not in their self-interest.
Businesses don't get to seel their stuff off in a bankruptcy - that's what the trustee does, for their creditors' benefit. So businesses aren't buying assets with an eye on their value in bankruptcy.
So the original business paid $100k for it with the intent of getting a leg up on the competition, they're not going to sell it once for $10k, and certainly not to their competitors, because not only do they now have an impairment of its value of $90k, they also now have someone who can sell it to others for $5k a crack, AND they've lost the advantage they bought it for in the first place.
Not gonna happen.
Looks like a shill account to pimp zdnet.com.au, doesn't it?
Nobody's defending paedophiles ... get over it (and yourself). The guy sponsoring this is a politician.
We're not in China ... the whole "claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public" is bullshit, as is the politician behind the lawsuit. Go after the producers. Oh, wait ... that would mean admitting its a job for the police ... so much for an opportunity for wrapping himself in the flag over an apple-pe issue.
Hey, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - lets sue the politicians - they're always "acting negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public".
After all, once Jeffrey Toback wins (fat chance), then HE'LL be the one who ultimately profited from child pr0n, and we can sue him ...
And then someone else can sue us ...
Repeat until the lawyers have ALL the money.
So get one of these http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2005/06/08/smart -car-plus-gsxr-equals-smartuki-a-very-smart-car
Enough "weirdness" factor to satisfy most slashdotters.
that's one hell of a press release ... could we say this?
(for those who didn't see the video - links here http://thankyoustephencolbert.org/)
Poster wrote:
Balmer believes if he throws enough chairs at a problem it will fix anything.
That's a lot of chairs ... anyone buying stock in office furniture supply companies?
... but now you've got to debate ... do you wait some more for the hd-dvd/blu-ray edition?
Darned, that has to be the funniest thing I've read in a while.
Q. Who shot first?
A. Who cares, as long as you're not the one with a hole in you.
Considering that Lucas' "original vision" was for a 9 or 12-story saga ...
_ hamill_spills_some_dirt_on_star_wars_episodes_7_8_ and_9.html
http://www.themovieblog.com/archives/2004/09/mark
http://www.epinions.com/content_4057571460
Not to take away from what he's done in terms of pop culture, but it would have been better if he'd stuck to the original idea. The first two episodes of the prequil smack of trying to recapture the ET franchise.
Which would YOU rather watch - a rerun of a 29-year-old movie, or Spaceballs 2?
People are going to buy this because the either:
So Dick Cheney isn't a Star Wars fan, I presume.
Who are these people and when can we shoot^Wmedicate them?
FTFA:
Let's substitute "the presidency" and "the people"
So when is the Economist going to do its share fore the "checks and balances" and pull a Colbert?
Mine's 1.2.3.4.5
Screw the candy bar - I want Spaceballs 2.
They have to realize that they're in competition for the consumer dollar. Let them make their product better, and lower the price of dvds to better reflect the incremental cost of supplying the movie on dvd, and they'll make out like gangbusters.
Nobody's going to bother pirating a dvd if they can buy a legit version for $5.00, and the studios will then end up making it on the volume.
The "brilliant assumption" is that people who pirate movies are going to tell the truth in a telephone survey. Did they also believe that everyone they offered a chocolate bar for their password gave a real answer?
Yep, and it was used to great effectiveness by Stephen Colbert at the White House Press Association Dinner.
the way the mainstream media covered his speech, you would think he wasn't even there.
http://thankyoustephencolbert.org/
My original argument was that the more $$$ you charge for something, the less likely the person buying is going to share it/pirate it/whatever with others. It applies to ALL software, proprietary and gpl, that business buys to obtain a competitive advantage, and moreso when there may be specific business knowledge embedded into your custom code.
Remember, this all is in context of the comment about ot being able to sell code because the gpl supposedly somehow destroys that possibility.
Then they're going to destroy their own market with their first sale - after that first sale, anyone can sell it for a "bargain price". It's not a viable business model.
Besides, NO software is useful without support. For developers, we can do our own support - for business, they have to shell out additional coin. So they buy a piece of software and are unable to use it - where's the profit for them in that? Strong incentive to buy fromthe original developer, even if he/she/they have posted ALL the code on the net free for everyone to partake, GPL'd to the hilt.
When there's a bug, it's ot about the "warm fuzzy feeling of kowing there's someone to support it" - its the ability of having YOUR problem go to the person best qualified to solve it in the shortest period of time.
think for two seconds ... whoever bought it for $10k isn't going to start selling copies of it - they bought it for a reason, and that reason isn't going to be "get into the software selling bix."
Especially since the sowtware would probably have been wiped before the servers were put up for sale (confidential data, etc).
If they're selling it for big bucks, they're going to have to hire support people anyway, if they don't want to do the tech support themselves.
Let those support people be the source for feedback for new features, etc., same as any other business.