In a perfect world govt produced stuff should probably be under something like a BSD licence- but due to corps 'death by proprietary' extensions principle, it would be unwise- if the research is to stay in the public domain.
Also, the way the American patent system appears to be, all you'd need to do is some minor tweaks, patent them and et voila- you stop everyone from using the (meant to be) free research. Just look at the patent firms that are living off this- buying patents that they didn't develop, and then trying to sue anyone who makes something similar.
If it's GPL'd it may be harder to make money from, but it gives all those who paid for it a fair shot- rather than a big coorp getting lots of free R&D.
Isn't it time someone put all the facts together- the real breakdown of costs in producing/marketing/selling/distributing music, what goes to who, the 'Constitutional' rights and protections that citizens get versus the RIAA (lifetime of the artist + 70 years isn't it!?), monopolistic actions against new competitors, broadcasting fees, any untoward action towards artists considering alternatives (e.g. Prince's name change, etc...), regular fact based debunking of RIAA disclosures, etc in one place (i.e. website)?
Collect the information, organise letter writing/demonstrations, acted completely within the law (so the RIAA et al won't have a leg to stand on), organised boycotts, seek media attention, buy advertising etc.
Isn't it time you American's got of the couch and started doing something about this?
(BTW- personally I won't agree with or use Napster et al until it's possible to pay the artists- personally I reckon there should be a mandatory minimum fee (to cover costs of recording in a quality studio and for the costs of running the servers etc- someone has to pay for power!) + an option for 'tips'- good artists would probably then supply you with something extra- and you're more likely to give them a good tip again next time....)
A lot of people seem to think the only acceptable way to support a for profit is by the traditional means- buying their shrink wrapped product. Everything else is unacceptable. But this is seems so closed minded- and limiting!
I don't want to buy a boxed set- I have a reasonable connection, don't need the support, and don't want more dead trees and yet another set of out-of date CD's. And there's a complete continuum of customers in between me, and needing/wanting the box and support. If Mandrake (and their ilk) tried to offer 'shrink wrapped' packages to suit all of us, they'd never have any resources left over to do anything!
Mandrake was never forced to release their ISO's for free. They did it for GOODWILL. Yes, they're for profit- since when did they become illegal?
But they don't seem to be in it simply for profit- they also want to foster GOODWILL between and among the people in their community. What's wrong with this?! Why does a for-profit company HAVE TO chase maximum returns at the cost of all else? Oh that's right, if it's a public company it has a 'responsibilty' to the investors. Joe public. You and I. We get to force the company to solely chase money (because if it isn't maximally profitable we'll pull our investments). It'll have to forget about any other concerns- community, social costs, environmental costs, etc- because they're not built into current economic models- our means of measuring profitability. And here's the real kicker- we get to blame big, faceless coorporations for trying to coerce us with advertising, destroying our societies, making us work long hours, and destroying our environment. The investors take no personal responsibility. And yet by choosing how they invest, they've dictated big business's direction.
I believe you and I are just as- if not more- responsible for the way of the world as the big coorporations- we should be responsible for our own greed.
So I say good on you Mandrake- stay private and in control of your own priorities. Thanks for giving us some choices and alternatives to the 'normal' business model. Thanks for risking something new and rising the ire of Joe Public. Thanks for the goodwill you've shown us via the free ISOs, the free and searchable forums, and all the other pages you pay for. And thanks for giving us a chance to extend our goodwill back to you.
And before you flame me, why don't you ask yourself why? Is it cynacism? If so, instead of complaining, what could you do to make the system better?
The above issue (78) has an article entitled Distance Education Using Linux and the MBONE, by Kelly Davis, Dr. Tom Miller, and Charles Price, primarily focused on lecture (push) needs.
However, it describes several tools including a whiteboard with clients for both windows and Linux, an A/V session recorder, etc, etc.
While I agree with your sentiment, I wonder if you've thought about the costs of the alternatives- creating silicon chips, plastics, metals, and the energy to run these things are all very environmentally costly; I don't know if it's as bad as chopping down trees, but I do wonder. At least trees CAN be a sustainable resource with CURRENT technologies. Also all of the above have relatively short life-spans and paper is a heck of a lot more reusable; it's even biodegradable!!
What do you think?
(BTW-
I feel the same about electric cars- seems like an answer until you start thinking about the in-efficiencies of the grid and current generation methods. Given current power generation/distribution technologies, would the environmental impact of greater demand cause more or less environmental impact than the current damage being caused by petroleum based vehicles?
If anyone knows of any studies or projections, please post to/.
I see the best solution as being revolutionary, not depending on current energy transportation systems, and locally generated to avoid the losses in the above. Fuel cells? High efficiency solar cells? Hydrogen engines? Flywheel based storage? All and more are being tried- hope they start to become viable soon!)
Slashdot Mirror
In a perfect world govt produced stuff should probably be under something like a BSD licence- but due to corps 'death by proprietary' extensions principle, it would be unwise- if the research is to stay in the public domain. Also, the way the American patent system appears to be, all you'd need to do is some minor tweaks, patent them and et voila- you stop everyone from using the (meant to be) free research. Just look at the patent firms that are living off this- buying patents that they didn't develop, and then trying to sue anyone who makes something similar. If it's GPL'd it may be harder to make money from, but it gives all those who paid for it a fair shot- rather than a big coorp getting lots of free R&D.
Isn't it time someone put all the facts together- the real breakdown of costs in producing/marketing/selling/distributing music, what goes to who, the 'Constitutional' rights and protections that citizens get versus the RIAA (lifetime of the artist + 70 years isn't it!?), monopolistic actions against new competitors, broadcasting fees, any untoward action towards artists considering alternatives (e.g. Prince's name change, etc...), regular fact based debunking of RIAA disclosures, etc in one place (i.e. website)? Collect the information, organise letter writing/demonstrations, acted completely within the law (so the RIAA et al won't have a leg to stand on), organised boycotts, seek media attention, buy advertising etc. Isn't it time you American's got of the couch and started doing something about this? (BTW- personally I won't agree with or use Napster et al until it's possible to pay the artists- personally I reckon there should be a mandatory minimum fee (to cover costs of recording in a quality studio and for the costs of running the servers etc- someone has to pay for power!) + an option for 'tips'- good artists would probably then supply you with something extra- and you're more likely to give them a good tip again next time....)
A lot of people seem to think the only acceptable way to support a for profit is by the traditional means- buying their shrink wrapped product. Everything else is unacceptable. But this is seems so closed minded- and limiting! I don't want to buy a boxed set- I have a reasonable connection, don't need the support, and don't want more dead trees and yet another set of out-of date CD's. And there's a complete continuum of customers in between me, and needing/wanting the box and support. If Mandrake (and their ilk) tried to offer 'shrink wrapped' packages to suit all of us, they'd never have any resources left over to do anything! Mandrake was never forced to release their ISO's for free. They did it for GOODWILL. Yes, they're for profit- since when did they become illegal? But they don't seem to be in it simply for profit- they also want to foster GOODWILL between and among the people in their community. What's wrong with this?! Why does a for-profit company HAVE TO chase maximum returns at the cost of all else? Oh that's right, if it's a public company it has a 'responsibilty' to the investors. Joe public. You and I. We get to force the company to solely chase money (because if it isn't maximally profitable we'll pull our investments). It'll have to forget about any other concerns- community, social costs, environmental costs, etc- because they're not built into current economic models- our means of measuring profitability. And here's the real kicker- we get to blame big, faceless coorporations for trying to coerce us with advertising, destroying our societies, making us work long hours, and destroying our environment. The investors take no personal responsibility. And yet by choosing how they invest, they've dictated big business's direction. I believe you and I are just as- if not more- responsible for the way of the world as the big coorporations- we should be responsible for our own greed. So I say good on you Mandrake- stay private and in control of your own priorities. Thanks for giving us some choices and alternatives to the 'normal' business model. Thanks for risking something new and rising the ire of Joe Public. Thanks for the goodwill you've shown us via the free ISOs, the free and searchable forums, and all the other pages you pay for. And thanks for giving us a chance to extend our goodwill back to you. And before you flame me, why don't you ask yourself why? Is it cynacism? If so, instead of complaining, what could you do to make the system better?
The above issue (78) has an article entitled Distance Education Using Linux and the MBONE, by Kelly Davis, Dr. Tom Miller, and Charles Price, primarily focused on lecture (push) needs.
However, it describes several tools including a whiteboard with clients for both windows and Linux, an A/V session recorder, etc, etc.
The article includes an URL: www.engr.ncsu.edu
Good luck!
(PS: I agree with the first author re Wacom, and disagree with the Trolls.)
While I agree with your sentiment, I wonder if you've thought about the costs of the alternatives- creating silicon chips, plastics, metals, and the energy to run these things are all very environmentally costly; I don't know if it's as bad as chopping down trees, but I do wonder. At least trees CAN be a sustainable resource with CURRENT technologies. Also all of the above have relatively short life-spans and paper is a heck of a lot more reusable; it's even biodegradable!!
/.
What do you think?
(BTW-
I feel the same about electric cars- seems like an answer until you start thinking about the in-efficiencies of the grid and current generation methods. Given current power generation/distribution technologies, would the environmental impact of greater demand cause more or less environmental impact than the current damage being caused by petroleum based vehicles?
If anyone knows of any studies or projections, please post to
I see the best solution as being revolutionary, not depending on current energy transportation systems, and locally generated to avoid the losses in the above. Fuel cells? High efficiency solar cells? Hydrogen engines? Flywheel based storage? All and more are being tried- hope they start to become viable soon!)