Nope, you understand my concern not at all. You ignore the key difference between the two stewardships, and label the synergy between the CDDL, Sun patents, MS patents, and the Sun/MS agreements as "conflating".
So please change that to "Misunderstood", but do please continure working on it. The key difference is that if OpenOffice were shutdown by MS patents, Sun gets to continue with StarOffice. If Apache were shutdown by patent infringements, where is the agreement that Apache gets to release closed source code versions of the code? Big difference.
fm6, please get a clue: "idiots" doesn't appear in the following:
"tantrum junkie"? I love it! Thanks! -russ p.s. try archive.org. My point remains.
That was what I was calling classy. You are off exactly one level (which is easy to do). Though going back that extra level, I thought it was a classy gentleman's response to your "self-righteous twit" and "tantrum junkie" name calling. Then again, after teaching Physical Science Labs to freshman (for a semester) rather than (real) Physics Labs to soph.s and juniors, I've perhaps developed more patience for dealing with idiots.
That link reminds me of Fox News' claim of "Fair and Ballanced". At least the bias is immediately obvious. Hard to see "informative", though "interesting" or "funny" could be appropriate.
With respects to JRT: All that is FREE is OPEN, yet not all that is OPEN is FREE.
Looks like OPEN is a superset that includes FREE (some might suggest) as the heart. Inseperable? Nope. But I'm sure I know which would have the most to lose.
Seems to me that the point was obvious. Rather than feed a troll, it seemed russ was classy in his (at least to me, effective) rebuttal. And it was a rebuttal, in that it succiently characterized the attack. I'd say, "nice job, russ".
" The way i see it, it's a sign that Open Source is finally growing up. Fanatics like ESR might do good to the cause in the early stages of revolution, but in the longer run, they will always prove to be an annoyance and will be dealt with.
Methinks you'd like the whole disruptive emergent pattern to recrystalize back into the old, accepted ways and methodologies. Would make you more comfortable, yes? Not likely, though...
Well except that the people supporting the revolution where only 1/5th the population at the start. Also note that local leadership had no real power. They most certainly weren't "established" in terms of holding the reins of power. It was all about "taxation without representation", if you'll recall highschool history class. In terms of "autonomy, not change", then why was it called The Great Experiment? Hint: it was a *radical* departure.
I'm replying to my own post to clarify my position. I don't think it would be equitble or fair to do away with copyright overnight. Too many people rely in good faith on the system. But it is also true that, for instance, movies exsist that predate video release, that where never sold in any form, just leased. These movies are soon to fall into the public domain. In order to limit the public domain, in order to avoid materials that would compete with current releases, these movies are to be destroyed. Any copies that get free are illegal, because no one ever had a right to copy them. This doesn't promote the arts or sciences by increasing the amount of public domain materials. It is just one example.
Ask yourself if software would have developed without software copyrights. Of course it would. Would it have provided the same advantage to develop it, of course not. Yet in order to push hardware, software would still have been written. Would Xerox Park and Bell Labs have done what they did, regardless? Would Linux have developed?
I think we do need to tone down the cry for "intellectual property" rights. I'd advocate decreasing the number of years the psuedo-rights are in effect by a given amount each year, until software was protected for 2 or 3 years. I'd want mandatory release after the protected term expired. I'd be willing for it to take awhile, so that business models adjust without causing chaos. The whole point is supposed to be the betterment of the public good.
Not that I think that is where we are headed, but I do think that would be a direction that would be fair to all concerned.
"Why shouldn't it be mandatory that if I write a great piece of software that I be required to simply -hand- you the means to undermine my ability to earn a living on it?"
Yet again this is exactly what I'm asking you to defend. There is no inherent reason that you should be accorded "rights" except that in order to promote the greater public welfare we the people through our representatives did in fact create a fictious form of psuedo-property and grant short-term rights to go along with it. So the ball is in your court. Those rights aren't real property rights, and thus don't have a long history of support. They are new, an experiment, and an experiment that isn't doing what it set out to do. So why should we continue? Why should you "certainly should be allowed the incentive" if that incentive isn't in the public interest? Again, it isn't real property. No one who copies your work is depriving you of your use (as would be the case if someone took your car, for instance).
I'll help you out. The purpose of that incentive is to promote the increase in public domain materials. As long as it works for that purpose, so that more public domain material exsists with copyright than without it, then it is worthwhile and we should continue to pretend that the psuedo-property is a form of property. Just doen't jump someone who suggests the tide has turned, as though there was no tide to consider. There is no god given right to ownership of intellectual property, it is merely a game we play for the purpose of increasing the common goods available to all.
In terms of which way the world is evolving, I see IP as a major point of contention in our future. Can't throw everyone in jail for downloading MP3s. Is it right? Should we try?
If you convince me that the greater good is served (with copyright and patent laws as they currently are), then I would say "let sleeping dogs lie", and I might not be that hard to convince. You haven't really tried to convince me, yet. You merely repeat that as things stand, you have legal rights. No mention of whether this is a "legal right" to rape the public, or a right which is just and in the common good.
PS, a quick disclosure: my BS degrees where in Physics and then Computer Science, and I'm an MBA Grad Student now. I might not be as much a hippie as you might think. Its just that I loved Bus Law and PolySci, and I hate to see anyone present an idea and me railroaded with (an inappropriately presented) status que. Thats all.
Actually while both the Apple and Sun licesnse qualify as OpenSource, the Apple license also qualify's as Free Software (even though it isn't GPL compatible), whereas the Sun license is only Open Source. I wouldn't start a project with Apple's license, but I wouldn't try to stop my kid from working on Darwin. I would try to stop my kid from working on Solaris. Big difference.
Sun: Hey y'all, here's some stuff and here's the license.
But then you make the y'all the OpenSource community and the FreeSoftware community. But it should be more like:
"Hey y'all, here's some stuff, and here's the license, and all you have to do to be free of the patents is to leave your communities and only work for our new limited community."
No, Apache doesn't demand it. The difference is that Apache doesn't say, in effect, "give us the copyright" so that MS can then turn around and sue you, the developer, while Apache gets to use the code you gave them in a forked and closed ApacheTwo project.
The concern is that n days down the road, MS sues and shuts down OpenOffice due to patent infringement that Sun could even know about right now, while Sun remains free and clear to continue with StarOffice. Thus all the work that was GPLed is lost to the community but remains the property of Sun.
Well it isn't like Sun gave the Open Source community anything. Rather, Sun is trying to clone their own personal community which is Open with its Source in their private little club. Not the same thing.
I didn't used to think Java was evil, and even took a few classes. Would rather wait for open versions to become useful before using it, though. Python and/or C++ works...
Why shouldn't it be mandatory that users have these rights? Not that they "acquire them", but have them in the same artifical manner that authors have them now. You ack as though the current state of affairs where dictated by Moses, rather than developing constantly as our legal system evolves. It is obvious that current copyright isn't promoting the arts and science by increasing the amount of public domain material. So the stated purpose has changed. Thus we have a status que that admits change and is in flux. So where should the line be drawn? Where should we go from here? You seem satisfied, but that doesn't mean there is any inherent reason why the author of code should have any of the rights we currently grant. It is a social experiment, not the 10 commandments.
No one is suggesting Sun can't do what they want with what they own. It is just that Sun had made noise as though they were joining the community, when in fact Sun wants to culture a copy of the community in their little petri dish. It is the disappoint of realizing they mean for developers to live in said little petri dish that has disappointed me. Sure Sun can do what they want. But Sun ain't no IBM for damn sure.
"recursive fractal division" implies an organic growth rate and the population of an ecosphere with a multitude of minute variations which natural selection fine tunes. To destroy that diversity and invest in a monoculture is to limit the speed and even the very reach of that development. It is not as simple as linear development, true. It is also far superior in the middle and long term, due to that very diversity inherent to parallel development, which you decry.
The amazing thing is this. The community is not divided. We need people to test all the various windows managers, as well as the various programming languages (from Lisp, Perl, Python, Rudy, C++, C#, etc...). GnuStep/Cocoa will develop useful things. Mono will develop useful things. Yet the culture is not divided by the variety of fruits growing in this open valley.
The bottom line is that this isn't your grandfather's OS, and the rules have changed. If there is anything for MS to fear, it is the rate of change the new model insists upon. Multiple sets of code heading in the optimal direction for each sets' vision, cross polinating freely. Yeah, its not as simple as a managed monopoly's vision. It is organic in nature, growing in every direction where water, sunlight and soil let it take seed.
Perhaps consider trying rtf->latex converters, or html->latex?
I know that AbiWord and Mathematica both have a "saveas" option for LaTeX. Am thinking AbiWord would be more appropriate. So if worse comes to worse, try opening templates from Word, WordPerfect, etc... in AbiWord and saving them as LaTeX.
Different tools for different jobs, and where AbiWord has focused a lot of energy is their format conversions. AbiWord opens almost everything, and can save to many, many formats. It is also looking prettier and prettier. I'm more an emacs kinda guy these days, though.
LaTeX is amazingly cool technology. It kicks ass for Math, and Math intensive areas like Physics. LaTeX is required for submitting to most Professional Journals in these fields.
While the learning curve is about that of hand coding HTML, LyX - The Document Processor gives you a frontend interface that simplifies getting started and getting things done. The output is beautiful.
The biggest problem our campus printing shop has is incompatibilies of versions of MS Word due to different computer labs running different versions (97 thru 2000 Pro). Mostly this seems to relate to embedded graphics and the formating of text around said emedded object. This isn't anecdote perpetuated by people who don't like Microsoft, this is historical fact related to using the campus printing shop, acknowledged by them as well as students.
Some classes required bound reports (Software Engineering did...), and your only hope is PDF. Crappy formatting isn't an option in a "professional" report.
The feature though is not a feature of software but a service that you've bought. But they are disabling a feature that does not require accessing their service! This is like saying that since I paid for my browser, I should still be able to use it to access slashdot even after two years. Quicken should be able to die, and the software should keep working.
Not the same. In your analogy, "Yankee", it would be as if Win95 continued to work locally, but MS turned off the ability to access the internet with it. It is not about "support", it is about crippling working functional software.
Slashdot Mirror
I count 29 compatible licenses: GPL-Compatible, Free Software Licenses
Nope, you understand my concern not at all. You ignore the key difference between the two stewardships, and label the synergy between the CDDL, Sun patents, MS patents, and the Sun/MS agreements as "conflating".
So please change that to "Misunderstood", but do please continure working on it. The key difference is that if OpenOffice were shutdown by MS patents, Sun gets to continue with StarOffice. If Apache were shutdown by patent infringements, where is the agreement that Apache gets to release closed source code versions of the code? Big difference.
That link reminds me of Fox News' claim of "Fair and Ballanced". At least the bias is immediately obvious. Hard to see "informative", though "interesting" or "funny" could be appropriate.
With respects to JRT:
All that is FREE is OPEN, yet not all that is OPEN is FREE.
Looks like OPEN is a superset that includes FREE (some might suggest) as the heart. Inseperable? Nope. But I'm sure I know which would have the most to lose.
Seems to me that the point was obvious. Rather than feed a troll, it seemed russ was classy in his (at least to me, effective) rebuttal. And it was a rebuttal, in that it succiently characterized the attack. I'd say, "nice job, russ".
" The way i see it, it's a sign that Open Source is finally growing up. Fanatics like ESR might do good to the cause in the early stages of revolution, but in the longer run, they will always prove to be an annoyance and will be dealt with.
Methinks you'd like the whole disruptive emergent pattern to recrystalize back into the old, accepted ways and methodologies. Would make you more comfortable, yes? Not likely, though...
Well except that the people supporting the revolution where only 1/5th the population at the start. Also note that local leadership had no real power. They most certainly weren't "established" in terms of holding the reins of power. It was all about "taxation without representation", if you'll recall highschool history class. In terms of "autonomy, not change", then why was it called The Great Experiment? Hint: it was a *radical* departure.
I'm replying to my own post to clarify my position. I don't think it would be equitble or fair to do away with copyright overnight. Too many people rely in good faith on the system. But it is also true that, for instance, movies exsist that predate video release, that where never sold in any form, just leased. These movies are soon to fall into the public domain. In order to limit the public domain, in order to avoid materials that would compete with current releases, these movies are to be destroyed. Any copies that get free are illegal, because no one ever had a right to copy them. This doesn't promote the arts or sciences by increasing the amount of public domain materials. It is just one example.
Ask yourself if software would have developed without software copyrights. Of course it would. Would it have provided the same advantage to develop it, of course not. Yet in order to push hardware, software would still have been written. Would Xerox Park and Bell Labs have done what they did, regardless? Would Linux have developed?
I think we do need to tone down the cry for "intellectual property" rights. I'd advocate decreasing the number of years the psuedo-rights are in effect by a given amount each year, until software was protected for 2 or 3 years. I'd want mandatory release after the protected term expired. I'd be willing for it to take awhile, so that business models adjust without causing chaos. The whole point is supposed to be the betterment of the public good.
Not that I think that is where we are headed, but I do think that would be a direction that would be fair to all concerned.
"Why shouldn't it be mandatory that if I write a great piece of software that I be required to simply -hand- you the means to undermine my ability to earn a living on it?"
Yet again this is exactly what I'm asking you to defend. There is no inherent reason that you should be accorded "rights" except that in order to promote the greater public welfare we the people through our representatives did in fact create a fictious form of psuedo-property and grant short-term rights to go along with it. So the ball is in your court. Those rights aren't real property rights, and thus don't have a long history of support. They are new, an experiment, and an experiment that isn't doing what it set out to do. So why should we continue? Why should you "certainly should be allowed the incentive" if that incentive isn't in the public interest? Again, it isn't real property. No one who copies your work is depriving you of your use (as would be the case if someone took your car, for instance).
I'll help you out. The purpose of that incentive is to promote the increase in public domain materials. As long as it works for that purpose, so that more public domain material exsists with copyright than without it, then it is worthwhile and we should continue to pretend that the psuedo-property is a form of property. Just doen't jump someone who suggests the tide has turned, as though there was no tide to consider. There is no god given right to ownership of intellectual property, it is merely a game we play for the purpose of increasing the common goods available to all.
In terms of which way the world is evolving, I see IP as a major point of contention in our future. Can't throw everyone in jail for downloading MP3s. Is it right? Should we try?
If you convince me that the greater good is served (with copyright and patent laws as they currently are), then I would say "let sleeping dogs lie", and I might not be that hard to convince. You haven't really tried to convince me, yet. You merely repeat that as things stand, you have legal rights. No mention of whether this is a "legal right" to rape the public, or a right which is just and in the common good.
PS, a quick disclosure: my BS degrees where in Physics and then Computer Science, and I'm an MBA Grad Student now. I might not be as much a hippie as you might think. Its just that I loved Bus Law and PolySci, and I hate to see anyone present an idea and me railroaded with (an inappropriately presented) status que. Thats all.
Actually while both the Apple and Sun licesnse qualify as OpenSource, the Apple license also qualify's as Free Software (even though it isn't GPL compatible), whereas the Sun license is only Open Source. I wouldn't start a project with Apple's license, but I wouldn't try to stop my kid from working on Darwin. I would try to stop my kid from working on Solaris. Big difference.
Sun: Hey y'all, here's some stuff and here's the license.
But then you make the y'all the OpenSource community and the FreeSoftware community. But it should be more like:
"Hey y'all, here's some stuff, and here's the license, and all you have to do to be free of the patents is to leave your communities and only work for our new limited community."
Sorry, too confining.
No, Apache doesn't demand it. The difference is that Apache doesn't say, in effect, "give us the copyright" so that MS can then turn around and sue you, the developer, while Apache gets to use the code you gave them in a forked and closed ApacheTwo project.
The concern is that n days down the road, MS sues and shuts down OpenOffice due to patent infringement that Sun could even know about right now, while Sun remains free and clear to continue with StarOffice. Thus all the work that was GPLed is lost to the community but remains the property of Sun.
Well it isn't like Sun gave the Open Source community anything. Rather, Sun is trying to clone their own personal community which is Open with its Source in their private little club. Not the same thing.
I didn't used to think Java was evil, and even took a few classes. Would rather wait for open versions to become useful before using it, though. Python and/or C++ works...
Why shouldn't it be mandatory that users have these rights? Not that they "acquire them", but have them in the same artifical manner that authors have them now. You ack as though the current state of affairs where dictated by Moses, rather than developing constantly as our legal system evolves. It is obvious that current copyright isn't promoting the arts and science by increasing the amount of public domain material. So the stated purpose has changed. Thus we have a status que that admits change and is in flux. So where should the line be drawn? Where should we go from here? You seem satisfied, but that doesn't mean there is any inherent reason why the author of code should have any of the rights we currently grant. It is a social experiment, not the 10 commandments.
No one is suggesting Sun can't do what they want with what they own. It is just that Sun had made noise as though they were joining the community, when in fact Sun wants to culture a copy of the community in their little petri dish. It is the disappoint of realizing they mean for developers to live in said little petri dish that has disappointed me. Sure Sun can do what they want. But Sun ain't no IBM for damn sure.
GPL-Compliant is a very well defined term. CDDL isn't GPL-Complant. CDDL will only be useful with CDDL. It is a mono-license. Oh well...
"recursive fractal division" implies an organic growth rate and the population of an ecosphere with a multitude of minute variations which natural selection fine tunes. To destroy that diversity and invest in a monoculture is to limit the speed and even the very reach of that development. It is not as simple as linear development, true. It is also far superior in the middle and long term, due to that very diversity inherent to parallel development, which you decry.
The amazing thing is this. The community is not divided. We need people to test all the various windows managers, as well as the various programming languages (from Lisp, Perl, Python, Rudy, C++, C#, etc...). GnuStep/Cocoa will develop useful things. Mono will develop useful things. Yet the culture is not divided by the variety of fruits growing in this open valley.
The bottom line is that this isn't your grandfather's OS, and the rules have changed. If there is anything for MS to fear, it is the rate of change the new model insists upon. Multiple sets of code heading in the optimal direction for each sets' vision, cross polinating freely. Yeah, its not as simple as a managed monopoly's vision. It is organic in nature, growing in every direction where water, sunlight and soil let it take seed.
Perhaps consider trying rtf->latex converters, or html->latex?
I know that AbiWord and Mathematica both have a "saveas" option for LaTeX. Am thinking AbiWord would be more appropriate. So if worse comes to worse, try opening templates from Word, WordPerfect, etc... in AbiWord and saving them as LaTeX.
Different tools for different jobs, and where AbiWord has focused a lot of energy is their format conversions. AbiWord opens almost everything, and can save to many, many formats. It is also looking prettier and prettier. I'm more an emacs kinda guy these days, though.
The problem is that their design made something that should be a stand-alone feature into a service.
It appears I was wrong. I just couldn't concieve that they'd funnel connections through a central location. I guess it is all about control...
LaTeX is amazingly cool technology. It kicks ass for Math, and Math intensive areas like Physics. LaTeX is required for submitting to most Professional Journals in these fields.
While the learning curve is about that of hand coding HTML, LyX - The Document Processor gives you a frontend interface that simplifies getting started and getting things done. The output is beautiful.
The biggest problem our campus printing shop has is incompatibilies of versions of MS Word due to different computer labs running different versions (97 thru 2000 Pro). Mostly this seems to relate to embedded graphics and the formating of text around said emedded object. This isn't anecdote perpetuated by people who don't like Microsoft, this is historical fact related to using the campus printing shop, acknowledged by them as well as students.
Some classes required bound reports (Software Engineering did...), and your only hope is PDF. Crappy formatting isn't an option in a "professional" report.
The feature though is not a feature of software but a service that you've bought. But they are disabling a feature that does not require accessing their service! This is like saying that since I paid for my browser, I should still be able to use it to access slashdot even after two years. Quicken should be able to die, and the software should keep working.
Not the same. In your analogy, "Yankee", it would be as if Win95 continued to work locally, but MS turned off the ability to access the internet with it. It is not about "support", it is about crippling working functional software.