It's simple to think that FSF's GPL implies they dislike copyright. I think it's more correct to state they dislike what people do with copyright, as in proprietary and vendor-locked software.
The GPL only has power if the government grants an "unnatural right" [as they referred to it in the link] known as copyright.
Depends on the text I guess. My first book was public domain originally. I decided to get it published and it only sold a couple thousand copies. Definitely not worth it.
If you think your text or results should be freely available, just forgo a publication and just distribute it yourself.
Getting your name on the cover of a printed book isn't the be-all of existence.
Again, nothing stops the owners from doing it themselves. These are in fact two separate issues. One is how politicians are lobbied to do the bidding of greedy corporations, the other is of owners not releasing their creations under useful license terms.
Well yeah. But my point is as a copyright owner you have the right to declare your creation as public domain. Disney could, for example, make steamboat willy public domain if they wanted. They choose not to, and moreso, to fight the terms by "Greasing the politicians."
Of course binaries should be copyrighted. I mean we were copyrighting movies long before computers existed and they're not written text. Binaries are of value to customers and therefore should be protected from rampant copying without rights. Otherwise, what's the incentive to write software? Sure you can switch the business model around, but how many people would honestly pre-order software which they've never seen before? Video games being the exception. I know I wouldn't spend $10K on a Synopsis license without first knowing they have a product that's been tested and used in the field.
All copyrighted things eventually become public domain. I disagree with the studios trying to extend the time of copyrights since many historical recordings should be freely viewed for educational purposes.
As for the source code of commercial software, the copyright is owned by the company, not the employees. So that gives companies legal recourse against employees who steal code. Often, customers are privy to portions of the software too [especially when you develop end user libraries], etc, etc.
As for the DRM comment. I think DRM should be illegal as it violates fair use. I think they're two separate issues. Sure they should have copyright protection, but they should also adhere to the fair use doctrines.
That's absurd. Look at software we're still using from the 70s. Compilers, TeX, windowing libraries, custom software [chip design for instance], etc, etc. Just because something is old doesn't mean it's not of value. If I spend time/money making a software library that I can use in products for years to come, doesn't mean I should public domain it just because it's not new anymore.
The real issue is the openness of the software. vendor lockin is a very real problem that people seem to skim over. Which is what the FSF and groups like it try to address.
Nothing with a copyright is public domain. Don't confuse free and libre, with public domain. Public domain software is *truly* free, just not always in the best of state since it can be exploited by naysayers by turning it proprietary.
The FSF and OSS movements were NEVER about abolishing copyright. They were about abolishing vendor-lockin and proprietary messes [re: file formats for instance].
GPL was always a copyright license, in fact, ALL licenses are copyright driven. The only terms which are not is the public domain which cannot, by definition, have a copyright applied to it.
Anyone who thinks OSS is about abolishing copyright doesn't know what they are talking about.
or not wander around with an HD with sensitive data on it? That's just mental. That data should be housed only in a secure facility with only remote secure access to it.
It's plain stupidity and lazyness that compels people to defy the simplest rules of security.
While we're speculating on motives let me chime in. A for-profit company has LESS interest in a cure than a treatment. That is, they'd rather you took more drugs longer than fewer drugs that cure the problem.
A socialized [re: subsidized] medical research company has more interest in curing problems as they make the same amount regardless of how many people they treat.
I dunno, after seeing my friends wrestle with BT all the time [hidd --search, over and over] I'm actually fond of wired devices. Sure I use wifi from time to time but I'd generally much rather cat-5. No hassling with "do I have a good signal" and all that jazz.
Sometimes it's nice to just plug something in and have it work without worrying about the environment.
And sure a power "pad" sounds nice but take into account the power loss. The thing most likely converts AC to DC [power loss], then from DC to EM [power loss], from EM to DC in the device [power loss]. So you'll be burning more energy to get the same amount of work done. Not exactly a step forwards.
At my workstation at home I have two consoles, a DVD player, a desktop, keyboard/mouse/monitor, printer, and two decent size bookshelf speakers. Most of the wires are tucked behind the desk/stand and aren't in the way. Maybe you got that funny appliances where all the wires go in the front?
I don't see why "cables" are such a bad thing. Maybe your desk is just a mess because you're unprofessional? I have a wired mouse, keyboard, headphones, and a USB drive sitting here and still plenty of room to open a book, write some notes, whatever. And I'd consider my desk a mess.
Oddly enough I have coffee stains on my desk and I don't drink coffee.... hmm odd.
Frankly it's really immature and naive to think it's possible with todays tech. Even the XO is costing over $100 to make in decent bulk quantities. A $10 laptop would really be cheap, and probably of next to no use to anyone. Hell I bet the case and screen of the XO costs more than $10. Let alone the logic board, keyboard, power supply, etc...
I think this is just a sign of things to come. Intel with their version of the XO, now India... I'm sure China has one up their sleeves too. All these people trying to ride the good will and reputation of OLPC is kinda making me sick...
I've run into "developers" who don't know the stages of compilation. I've been asked what "preprocessing" means in the lab before [at a workplace].
There are many "coders" out there that have very minimal training. it's optimism [oh they're improve] and sheer ignorance that keeps them employed. Anyone in the workplace doing a developers job should know how to use a debugger, memory testing tool [e.g. valgrind], and the ins/outs of their development suite. Short of that they're just incompetent and don't deserve a developers job.
I'd rather go for more interactivity than pixels. I mean what's the point of having 1600x1200 resolutions when you're no more capable to perform non-linear operations [e.g. mess with the env] than you could 10 years ago?
In FPSes for instance it would be nice to be able to destroy walls, pick up things, etc. Half-Life 2 kinda goes in that direction but many games are just really shiny with little going on behind the scenes.
Sure it's nice to play games with graphics, but usually their appeal lasts a lot shorter than games with actual engagement to them. The better studios know how to balance this.
The problem Sony put themselves into is that "better" could mean less power [on paper] which would be hard to sell given their current attitude that FLOPS == fun.
If the PS4 was more economical, and also less powerful chances are it would be a very hard sell without really distancing themselves from the PS3.
Look at Wii, sure they made it faster, probably added some ram to it, etc. But they're not a stats junkie. They're not dependent on raw numbers to sell consoles. Instead they rely on it actually being a fun toy.
1000s 100s whatever, point is it's not like you actually have a say in the matter. 72% of the country disapprove of Bush, yet he's still at the wheel running into every stationary object possible.
So like I said, vote for the presidential candidate who amuses you the most. Cuz for four years you'll see the daily show/colbert report make fun of them, you'll laugh and life will go on.
If you think any politician is even remotely likely to take on industry or the military industrial complex, and do what's actually right for a change, you are sadly mistaken. Life is one bigs boys club, always has been, always will be.
Right, and I'll hold my breath until I see something innovative come of all the mess. Actually, do me a favour, can you hold your breath for me? That way when you eventually pass out, hit your head on the desk and lapse into a coma for 15 years you can report back to me with baited breath of the new promises said technology have given us.
About the only useful use for flash is Homestarrunner and the legion of semi-amusing flash games. But most of that is stuff we could have done with Java [well except for the cartoons].
Keep in mind that's what flash was originally. An animation scripting toolset. It grew into a larger tool and is largely redundant as Java not only addresses many of the same problems, but, and omg I'm siding with Java so hear me out, does it better, faster, and with more portability. Good lord, I just spoke well of another annoying tech. Bad newbie!!! Now go get me a coffee! *whistles* get out of here!
Slashdot Mirror
It's simple to think that FSF's GPL implies they dislike copyright. I think it's more correct to state they dislike what people do with copyright, as in proprietary and vendor-locked software.
The GPL only has power if the government grants an "unnatural right" [as they referred to it in the link] known as copyright.
Tom
Depends on the text I guess. My first book was public domain originally. I decided to get it published and it only sold a couple thousand copies. Definitely not worth it.
If you think your text or results should be freely available, just forgo a publication and just distribute it yourself.
Getting your name on the cover of a printed book isn't the be-all of existence.
Tom
Again, nothing stops the owners from doing it themselves. These are in fact two separate issues. One is how politicians are lobbied to do the bidding of greedy corporations, the other is of owners not releasing their creations under useful license terms.
Tom
Well yeah. But my point is as a copyright owner you have the right to declare your creation as public domain. Disney could, for example, make steamboat willy public domain if they wanted. They choose not to, and moreso, to fight the terms by "Greasing the politicians."
Tom
It can. The owners have to decide to give it out as public domain. It's *their* choice.
Otherwise, this would just give companies motive to put other companies under and then steal their wares.
Tom
Mmm so many naive questions and ideas.
Of course binaries should be copyrighted. I mean we were copyrighting movies long before computers existed and they're not written text. Binaries are of value to customers and therefore should be protected from rampant copying without rights. Otherwise, what's the incentive to write software? Sure you can switch the business model around, but how many people would honestly pre-order software which they've never seen before? Video games being the exception. I know I wouldn't spend $10K on a Synopsis license without first knowing they have a product that's been tested and used in the field.
All copyrighted things eventually become public domain. I disagree with the studios trying to extend the time of copyrights since many historical recordings should be freely viewed for educational purposes.
As for the source code of commercial software, the copyright is owned by the company, not the employees. So that gives companies legal recourse against employees who steal code. Often, customers are privy to portions of the software too [especially when you develop end user libraries], etc, etc.
As for the DRM comment. I think DRM should be illegal as it violates fair use. I think they're two separate issues. Sure they should have copyright protection, but they should also adhere to the fair use doctrines.
Tom
That's absurd. Look at software we're still using from the 70s. Compilers, TeX, windowing libraries, custom software [chip design for instance], etc, etc. Just because something is old doesn't mean it's not of value. If I spend time/money making a software library that I can use in products for years to come, doesn't mean I should public domain it just because it's not new anymore.
The real issue is the openness of the software. vendor lockin is a very real problem that people seem to skim over. Which is what the FSF and groups like it try to address.
Tom
The owner of the rights could have released it under a free license, or gave it to the public domain.
Get angry at the authors/publishers for abusing copyright terms. Not the law.
Tom
Nothing with a copyright is public domain. Don't confuse free and libre, with public domain. Public domain software is *truly* free, just not always in the best of state since it can be exploited by naysayers by turning it proprietary.
Tom
The FSF and OSS movements were NEVER about abolishing copyright. They were about abolishing vendor-lockin and proprietary messes [re: file formats for instance].
GPL was always a copyright license, in fact, ALL licenses are copyright driven. The only terms which are not is the public domain which cannot, by definition, have a copyright applied to it.
Anyone who thinks OSS is about abolishing copyright doesn't know what they are talking about.
Tom
or not wander around with an HD with sensitive data on it? That's just mental. That data should be housed only in a secure facility with only remote secure access to it.
It's plain stupidity and lazyness that compels people to defy the simplest rules of security.
Tom
While we're speculating on motives let me chime in. A for-profit company has LESS interest in a cure than a treatment. That is, they'd rather you took more drugs longer than fewer drugs that cure the problem.
A socialized [re: subsidized] medical research company has more interest in curing problems as they make the same amount regardless of how many people they treat.
Just for thought...
Tom
I dunno, after seeing my friends wrestle with BT all the time [hidd --search, over and over] I'm actually fond of wired devices. Sure I use wifi from time to time but I'd generally much rather cat-5. No hassling with "do I have a good signal" and all that jazz.
Sometimes it's nice to just plug something in and have it work without worrying about the environment.
And sure a power "pad" sounds nice but take into account the power loss. The thing most likely converts AC to DC [power loss], then from DC to EM [power loss], from EM to DC in the device [power loss]. So you'll be burning more energy to get the same amount of work done. Not exactly a step forwards.
Tom
At my workstation at home I have two consoles, a DVD player, a desktop, keyboard/mouse/monitor, printer, and two decent size bookshelf speakers. Most of the wires are tucked behind the desk/stand and aren't in the way. Maybe you got that funny appliances where all the wires go in the front?
Tom
I don't see why "cables" are such a bad thing. Maybe your desk is just a mess because you're unprofessional? I have a wired mouse, keyboard, headphones, and a USB drive sitting here and still plenty of room to open a book, write some notes, whatever. And I'd consider my desk a mess.
Oddly enough I have coffee stains on my desk and I don't drink coffee.... hmm odd.
Tom
well I'll make a $5 laptop!!! beat that India!
... I'm sure China has one up their sleeves too. All these people trying to ride the good will and reputation of OLPC is kinda making me sick...
Frankly it's really immature and naive to think it's possible with todays tech. Even the XO is costing over $100 to make in decent bulk quantities. A $10 laptop would really be cheap, and probably of next to no use to anyone. Hell I bet the case and screen of the XO costs more than $10. Let alone the logic board, keyboard, power supply, etc...
I think this is just a sign of things to come. Intel with their version of the XO, now India
Tom
Got nothing.
... magnetic induction ... magnetic storage ... hmmm ... tomatos ... tomato soup .... hmm ...
Wait
What are we talking about?
I've run into "developers" who don't know the stages of compilation. I've been asked what "preprocessing" means in the lab before [at a workplace].
There are many "coders" out there that have very minimal training. it's optimism [oh they're improve] and sheer ignorance that keeps them employed. Anyone in the workplace doing a developers job should know how to use a debugger, memory testing tool [e.g. valgrind], and the ins/outs of their development suite. Short of that they're just incompetent and don't deserve a developers job.
Tom
better is google patents [faster and sexier]
omg
Tom
No reason the Wii can't come out with wireless controllers [conventional style] if Wiimoting proves to get old for gamers. So they still have an out.
Tom
I'd rather go for more interactivity than pixels. I mean what's the point of having 1600x1200 resolutions when you're no more capable to perform non-linear operations [e.g. mess with the env] than you could 10 years ago?
In FPSes for instance it would be nice to be able to destroy walls, pick up things, etc. Half-Life 2 kinda goes in that direction but many games are just really shiny with little going on behind the scenes.
Sure it's nice to play games with graphics, but usually their appeal lasts a lot shorter than games with actual engagement to them. The better studios know how to balance this.
Tom
The problem Sony put themselves into is that "better" could mean less power [on paper] which would be hard to sell given their current attitude that FLOPS == fun.
If the PS4 was more economical, and also less powerful chances are it would be a very hard sell without really distancing themselves from the PS3.
Look at Wii, sure they made it faster, probably added some ram to it, etc. But they're not a stats junkie. They're not dependent on raw numbers to sell consoles. Instead they rely on it actually being a fun toy.
Tom
1000s 100s whatever, point is it's not like you actually have a say in the matter. 72% of the country disapprove of Bush, yet he's still at the wheel running into every stationary object possible.
So like I said, vote for the presidential candidate who amuses you the most. Cuz for four years you'll see the daily show/colbert report make fun of them, you'll laugh and life will go on.
If you think any politician is even remotely likely to take on industry or the military industrial complex, and do what's actually right for a change, you are sadly mistaken. Life is one bigs boys club, always has been, always will be.
tom
YA RLY cuz like the others are just so much better.
Newsflash, Meridith, it's all just a big crapshoot, so why not vote for the person most likely to entertain you.
Any serious policy happens in the house anyways. Amongst the 1000s of senators who run the country.
Tom
Right, and I'll hold my breath until I see something innovative come of all the mess. Actually, do me a favour, can you hold your breath for me? That way when you eventually pass out, hit your head on the desk and lapse into a coma for 15 years you can report back to me with baited breath of the new promises said technology have given us.
About the only useful use for flash is Homestarrunner and the legion of semi-amusing flash games. But most of that is stuff we could have done with Java [well except for the cartoons].
Keep in mind that's what flash was originally. An animation scripting toolset. It grew into a larger tool and is largely redundant as Java not only addresses many of the same problems, but, and omg I'm siding with Java so hear me out, does it better, faster, and with more portability. Good lord, I just spoke well of another annoying tech. Bad newbie!!! Now go get me a coffee! *whistles* get out of here!
Tom