The reality is that, noone, including Linus Torvalds, can ever guarantee that code in the Linux kernel is free of counter ownership, or attribution claims.
The following equally applies:
The reality is that, noone, nobody anywhere, can ever guarantee that code in any piece of software ever written is free of counter ownership, or attribution claims.
This is because anyone at any time can challenge the ownership or attribution of any software at any time in the future. All they need is a lawyer. Noone can ever "guarantee" that someone else in the future will not sue and gain ownership of "their" code.
This sentence shows that you either don't understand software, particularly open source software, or that your intention with this article was sensationalism and divisiveness.
Certainly the philosophy behind the GPL has similarities to communism, but nobody has to use GPL'd software. The troubles that Progressive Software faced were due to their own mistakes. They either didn't read the licenses, didn't understand them, or just didn't care. It's their own fault.
I see the GPL as a license for a developer to consider if one believes that the business, political, and financial branches of our society are not living up to their end of the division of labor bargain. It ensures that creators cannot have their creations taken away by non-creators while continuing to share and improve said creation. The GPL views non-creators as middle-men that can be cut out of the supply chain. Businesses, politicians and those in finance would understandably rather not be cut out of the loop. The medium of trade moves away from money and toward contribution.
The GPL is not the antithesis of intellectual property. It is one option among many for those that understand intellectual property and it's implications.
If you don't like the GPL, don't use it, and don't build products on top of GPL'd software. And as far as business models surrounding GPL'd software go, they're just gravy. The true goal of the GPL is to allow creators to keep their creations.
Ideally, the IT department ought to recommend the best computer for the job, but more often than not, they recommend the best computer for the IT department's job.
If this is in fact true, how would it be different than any other department? The Legal department recommending the strategy that best behooves the Legal department; the Marketing department making recommendations that behoove the Marketing department... It's made to sound like this is bad for IT departments to do when there might otherwise be no IT department. Why would an organization recommend their own demise?
You can apply it to entire industries as well. The Music industry making recommendations that behoove the Music industry; the Finance industry recommending things that benefit the Finance industry...
I think it's called 'enlightened self interest', or something like that.
Here here! I follow the techie issues and believe that they can have some political translation. But all too often these issues are associated with liberal ideals. For some articles I've seen I'd even go as far as to say that the author is a far left wing kook. I've seen a bit of the other side (too conservative), but liberalism seems to appear more often. That's just my gut feeling.
In my mind it's hard to cleanly drop techie issues into conservative/liberal or democrat/republican (or whatever) buckets, which makes it hard to organize as a political force.
...but browsers today who refuse to use cookies are just cutting themselves off from a large part of the Internet.
This does not agree with my experiences. I refuse all cookies (via the mozilla pop-ups). If a site breaks or tells me they need cookies, I turn them on for that site. So far I've only had to do so for a handful of sites.
Speaking of Econ, I've seen the term rivalry used to distinguish physical and intellectual resources. Physical resources (land, clothing, food) are rivalrous, which means people have been known to fight over them because only one person can use the resource at a time. Intellectual resources (mathmatics, Einstein's theory of relativity) are non-rivalrous because many can use these resources simultaneously without diminishing any other's use of it. I like these terms because they are concise.
The law has stronger provisions for rivalrous resource owners than it has for non-rivalrous resource owners. This proposed law (AFAIK) would strengthen the latter provisions.
In economist writings I've seen this distinction referred to as a disctinction between rivalrous and non-rivalrous resources. All physical resources (televisions, clothing, land) are rivalrous. That is to say, people could have a rivalry (ie fight) over them because only one person can use a particular physical resource at a time. All intellectual resources are non-rivalrous. For example, many can (and indeed do) use Einstein's theory of relativity without diminishing any other's use of it.
I think most people know this instinctually, I was just happy when I found an actual economic concept that expresses it concisely.
What is important here is that Oppenheim (and the RIAA) are trying to inflate the rights of intellectual property owners to the level of physical property owners. That is, they're trying to make everyone believe that the rights of non-rivalrous resource owners are equal to, and should be equal to, the rights of rivalrous resource owners.
The law has never considered them equal (IANAL). The reason why is that the respective mediums in which these properties act are distinctly different. The law grants stronger rights to rivalrous resource owners than it grants to non-rivalrous resource owners, as it should.
I'd also like to note that any person with knowledge of the distinction between rivalrous and non-rivalrous resources would conduct negotiations for the use of those resources differently.
Oppenheim:...
Why should copyright holders, who as owners of intellectual property, have fewer rights than somebody who owns televisions or clothing and attempts to sell them?...
Um, because televisions and clothing are physical property, and physical property is different than intellectual property. Otherwise it all would just be called property, wouldn't it?
Why are they only mentioning that generally conservative groups are using this tactic? Could it be because liberal groups don't need to write letters, because the NYT already presents their views? True, they do mention "the other side", but not until paragraph 14, whereas the RNC and PP are mentioned in paragraph 2.
I've seen "preprogrammed letters" to congressmen or news organizations on a variety of issues, and with views throughout the range of the political spectrum. Why would they single out the RNC and PP? Just curious.
I believe that digital is a cause of some of the degradation of quality that we have seen. Not necessarily with respect to reliability or length of life, but just little things.
Take my car sterio for example. Let's say I'm listening to a song while parking somewhere. I decide that I want listen to the rest of it before I get out. But the car doesn't need to be running for that time, so I turn the key back a few notches so that the engine is off but the sterio is on. As I do that the sterio stops playing for a good 3-5 seconds while my digital sterio "boots up". Car radios never did that when they were analog. When you turned the key back a few notches, you barely noticed, because if power was running to it, it was playing.
Digital sucks.
Of course this probably doesn't happen with all modern car sterio systems, but it does with mine. And what about the preset stations? There's a pause in the sound when I hit one of those buttons. Why? Old analog sterios never did that, especially the really old ones with the mechnical "radio buttons".
I notice these little things in other devices; where digital is worse than the old analog versions for certain features.
We started out naming servers after prescription drug treatments for mental disorders. So we have zoloft, serax, xanax, lithium, and paxil. Then we moved onto drugs for treating fat people, like xenical. That was good, but we wanted something a little more racy, so we looked for drugs used for treating STDs, like zovirax and valtrex. But the best we've found so far are the treatments for IBS, like levsin, librax, and questran.
What if Blizzard is just doing this for the publicity? I'll admit that I went back and played StarCraft a few times after I saw this story first show up on/. It's just another was of getting people hyped up for the forthcoming release of wc3. Every time this story makes the front page of/., lots of people think "oh yeah, when is wc3 gunna come out"
So who holds on to the information regarding the fact that I have opted out? Are they allowed to give/sell that information to anyone? What's to stop an institution from treating me differently because I have opted out? "I see that you have opted out. That means we can't sell your information to whoever we want. Which means that the interest rate on your home loan will now be 5% higher."
It seems that whoever is at the other end of this number would have to give my "opt-out status" to anyone/everyone. Thus giving institutions grounds for treating me differently than someone who hasn't opted out.
I can't tell you whether the law is copyrighted because copyright law is copyrighted. I'll let you read the copyrighted copyright law if you send me $600. Thank you, drive through.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Daniel Lyons,
"Such a pity, comrade."
This sentence shows that you either
don't understand software, particularly
open source software, or that your
intention with this article was
sensationalism and divisiveness.
Certainly the philosophy behind the
GPL has similarities to communism, but
nobody has to use GPL'd software. The
troubles that Progressive Software
faced were due to their own mistakes.
They either didn't read the licenses,
didn't understand them, or just didn't
care. It's their own fault.
I see the GPL as a license for a
developer to consider if one believes
that the business, political, and
financial branches of our society are
not living up to their end of the
division of labor bargain. It ensures
that creators cannot have their
creations taken away by non-creators
while continuing to share and improve
said creation. The GPL views
non-creators as middle-men that can be
cut out of the supply chain. Businesses,
politicians and those in finance would
understandably rather not be cut out of
the loop. The medium of trade moves
away from money and toward contribution.
The GPL is not the antithesis of
intellectual property. It is one
option among many for those that
understand intellectual property and
it's implications.
If you don't like the GPL, don't use
it, and don't build products on top of
GPL'd software. And as far as business
models surrounding GPL'd software
go, they're just gravy. The true
goal of the GPL is to allow creators to
keep their creations.
If this is in fact true, how would it be different than any other department? The Legal department recommending the strategy that best behooves the Legal department; the Marketing department making recommendations that behoove the Marketing department... It's made to sound like this is bad for IT departments to do when there might otherwise be no IT department. Why would an organization recommend their own demise?
You can apply it to entire industries as well. The Music industry making recommendations that behoove the Music industry; the Finance industry recommending things that benefit the Finance industry...
I think it's called 'enlightened self interest', or something like that.
In my mind it's hard to cleanly drop techie issues into conservative/liberal or democrat/republican (or whatever) buckets, which makes it hard to organize as a political force.
The law has stronger provisions for rivalrous resource owners than it has for non-rivalrous resource owners. This proposed law (AFAIK) would strengthen the latter provisions.
In economist writings I've seen this distinction referred to as a disctinction between rivalrous and non-rivalrous resources. All physical resources (televisions, clothing, land) are rivalrous. That is to say, people could have a rivalry (ie fight) over them because only one person can use a particular physical resource at a time. All intellectual resources are non-rivalrous. For example, many can (and indeed do) use Einstein's theory of relativity without diminishing any other's use of it.
I think most people know this instinctually, I was just happy when I found an actual economic concept that expresses it concisely.
What is important here is that Oppenheim (and the RIAA) are trying to inflate the rights of intellectual property owners to the level of physical property owners. That is, they're trying to make everyone believe that the rights of non-rivalrous resource owners are equal to, and should be equal to, the rights of rivalrous resource owners.
The law has never considered them equal (IANAL). The reason why is that the respective mediums in which these properties act are distinctly different. The law grants stronger rights to rivalrous resource owners than it grants to non-rivalrous resource owners, as it should.
I'd also like to note that any person with knowledge of the distinction between rivalrous and non-rivalrous resources would conduct negotiations for the use of those resources differently.
Anyone remember that one? I thought it was a riot.
Why are they only mentioning that generally conservative groups are using this tactic? Could it be because liberal groups don't need to write letters, because the NYT already presents their views? True, they do mention "the other side", but not until paragraph 14, whereas the RNC and PP are mentioned in paragraph 2.
I've seen "preprogrammed letters" to congressmen or news organizations on a variety of issues, and with views throughout the range of the political spectrum. Why would they single out the RNC and PP? Just curious.
I believe that digital is a cause of some of the degradation of quality that we have seen. Not necessarily with respect to reliability or length of life, but just little things.
Take my car sterio for example. Let's say I'm listening to a song while parking somewhere. I decide that I want listen to the rest of it before I get out. But the car doesn't need to be running for that time, so I turn the key back a few notches so that the engine is off but the sterio is on. As I do that the sterio stops playing for a good 3-5 seconds while my digital sterio "boots up". Car radios never did that when they were analog. When you turned the key back a few notches, you barely noticed, because if power was running to it, it was playing.
Digital sucks.
Of course this probably doesn't happen with all modern car sterio systems, but it does with mine. And what about the preset stations? There's a pause in the sound when I hit one of those buttons. Why? Old analog sterios never did that, especially the really old ones with the mechnical "radio buttons".
I notice these little things in other devices; where digital is worse than the old analog versions for certain features.
This story was mentioned on Jay Leno last night. He joked that this type of technology would be used for sexual purposes, or course.
You really should follow the IBS link to find out what IBS is.
We started out naming servers after prescription drug treatments for mental disorders. So we have zoloft, serax, xanax, lithium, and paxil. Then we moved onto drugs for treating fat people, like xenical. That was good, but we wanted something a little more racy, so we looked for drugs used for treating STDs, like zovirax and valtrex. But the best we've found so far are the treatments for IBS, like levsin, librax, and questran.
What if Blizzard is just doing this for the publicity? I'll admit that I went back and played StarCraft a few times after I saw this story first show up on /. It's just another was of getting people hyped up for the forthcoming release of wc3. Every time this story makes the front page of /., lots of people think "oh yeah, when is wc3 gunna come out"
how long before someone sets up a proxy server that just munges the user agent string?
If something is different, it's either better or worse, and usually both. -- Larry Wall
It seems that whoever is at the other end of this number would have to give my "opt-out status" to anyone/everyone. Thus giving institutions grounds for treating me differently than someone who hasn't opted out.
I can't tell you whether the law is copyrighted because copyright law is copyrighted. I'll let you read the copyrighted copyright law if you send me $600. Thank you, drive through.