I found this wording found in the last paragraph interesting:
"UNIX is used pursuant to an exclusive license with The Open Group and is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other countries."
Am I misreading this or is SCO now claiming that they, and only they, have the right to use the UNIX mark? I guess if their story is that they already own all UNIXes everywhere (and their derivatives) then this attitude makes sense to them.
I've been doing this for at least the last five years. I use a 3Com 3C886 56K LAN Modem: 4-port (+1 cross-over) hub, DHCP, NAT, Weblett access, etc.) firewalled by a Netgear FVS318 Firewall/router.
I regularly run at least three PCs on this connection, and have had up to six Internet connections up at a time with no practical loss of speed (seat-of-the-pants benchmarking - the only kind that counts in the real world).
The best part of using one of these rather than a standard modem is the elimination of all that PPP nonsense. The ethernet connection is much easier to setup and manage. Also, I have noticed that with using the LANmodem, I have fewer disconnects than I did with my modem.
The downside to the 3Com product is its cost. I wish the Actiontec had been around when I got my 3Com - it's a third the price. And with a hub or switch, who needs more than one port anyway.
I'm going to be looking into getting one of these for each of my friends and relatives who, like me, cannot yet afford broadband.
Not only does this belong on Slashdot, it belongs on the Kernel list as well. I don't think many people really understand the implications of the BK license: At this point, neither can Linus nor any other kernel developer that used BK, ever, ever work on anything that even smells like it came from the same planet as BitKeeper. For the rest of their lives!
And by implication, it also means that the Linux kernel itself can never contain anything remotely like BitKeeper without violating the BK license. Surely, this is not a good precedent.
Now, while many may say "The License be damned." or "The license does not appy in my country.", polluting any portion of Linux with such greedy, anticompetitive hogwash bodes nothing but trouble in Linux's future. We already have enough bad PR to contend with in that ridiculous SCO thing.
Why didn't I think of that. Those Japanese always come up with the really cool ideas first! And to think, all this time I've been using the copy machine in the public library.
Here's a creative way of removing or changing any potential SCO code in Linux:
1) A Linux kernel-savvy hacker signs SCO NDA
2) Hacker looks at SCO "evidence".
3) Hacker emails kernel list saying: "I can't tell you what the SCO code looks like, but this code in the kernel needs to be removed or changed right now."
4) Some kernel code get changed - new release. Problem solved.
Actually your post should have been moderated as +5: Funny!;)
In fact, the Corporate version of XP Pro is easily obtainable and installs and runs just fine without any authentication required. I suspect that there are more pirated copies of XP Pro in Home-userland than legitimate retail versions (corporate use notwithstanding).
And yes, both SP1 and OfficeXP SP1 can be installed (via some slick little trojan authentication apps) on the pirated XP.
"I live in the Bay Area. There are cameras on top of every intersection's stoplights, to make sure nobody runs a red light (funny, I personally have never noticed rampant red-light-running, even before the cameras).
"The traffic/stoplight cameras are over the line too, but they're very hard to protest nonviolently (they're 25 feet in the air and I'm in my car -- what to do?)"
We have the start of the same thing in San Diego. But recently all of the cameras were turned off by the San Diego Police Department, pending an investigation.
Seems Lockheed-Martin (the owner and installer of the proprietary camera system) had sole descretion as to which intersections to monitor. Last week it was found out that they had put cameras not at intersections with histories of accidents, but only at those with either high traffic, or short yellow lights.
At several other monitored intersections, Lockheed-Martin's installers adjusted the yellow light times to be shorter than required by law. Some yellow lights were shortened to less than three seconds.
It has been reported that both the City of San Diego and Lockheed-Martin have received so far this year, over $1,750,000 in revenue from red-light camera tickets. Lockheed-Martin gets $70.00 from each $271 fine paid for running a red light in San Diego.
Lockheed-Martin moved the sensors such that they flagged a car as going through a red light, when in fact, it had actually stopped at the intersection. Consider how many more cars will be photographed if the virtual intersection is widened in one or both directions by a couple of feet.
There is no accountability as to the method(s) used to determine whether a car had gone through an intersection or not. A photo, by itself is not sufficient. These are not videos, these are cropped still pictures showing a motionless car at the time it crossed an unspecified and unknown boundary. People have been ticketed while stopped at a red light. The sensors said they ran the red light, when in fact they had not.
There is no picture of the traffic signal. The cameras are actually pointing down so as to catch both the license plate and driver's face of the offending vehicle. The sensors measure the position of the car relative to the timing of the signal. The placement of the sensors is critical to accurate measurement of the cars' position relative to the state of the traffic light.
There is a reason that limit lines are painted at controlled intersections. A motorist has a reasonable expectation that the camera's virtual limit lines are in the same plane as their painted counterparts. Also, in California, it is legal to make a right turn against a red light (after stopping first). There is no means of knowing whether the camera takes this into consideration.
These are closed systems. They are not open to inspection, validation or critique by third parties, or even by the city. They can be as arbitrary in their measurements as the vendor can get away with. In the case of San Diego, Lockheed-Martin was caught.
Lockheed-Martin has no business getting a bounty on every motorist who runs a red light. That is a clear a flagrant conflict of interest. Imagine what kind of mess we will be in when electronic voting takes place if such closed proprietary systems are implemented by corporations with a vested interest in the outcome of the final tally.
Don't kid yourself. Photographs can be and are often manipulated to lie. We have whole entertainment and marketing industries built around this very fact. And they make a LOT of money.
San Diego's red-light camera system is a good example of why letting Corporate America enforce laws might be a bad idea.
Last week, the San Diego Police Department turned off all red-light cameras in the the city, pending an investigation into the cameras' accuracy. Other cities in San Diego County may follow the city of San Diego's lead soon.
It was found out that the manufacturer and owner of all of the county's red-light cameras, Lockheed-Martin, had "Recalibrated" camera sensors at several of the busiest intersections in the city. This recalibration resulted in a substantial increase in the number of motorists ticketed, many from false positives resulting from the tweaked sensor settings. Many motorists were actually ticketed for going through green lights after being stopped for the red light.
It has also been discovered that many of the yellow lights at intersections are timed shorter than state law dictates, although Lockheed-Martin is not implicated in this problem.
The adjustments to the camera sensors were done without the permission, supervision, or even knowledge of the city of San Diego or its police department.
An independent investigative firm will be hired by the city to determine if any other cameras have been tampered with by Lockheed-Martin.
All motorists who received citations at these intersections will have their traffic cases dismissed (many retroactively) and their fines cancelled.
Because the cameras are actually owned and operated by Lockheed-Martin, who claim that the technology used is proprietary, and therefore secret, it is not possible for an accused driver to challenge a ticket in court on the basis of the camera systems being wrongly designed, calibrated or maintained. Unlike radar guns, there is no way to request documentation on the status of any given camera from the vendor or operator.
Several court cases regarding the legality of these cameras are pending. Some tickets have been dismissed because the courts found them to constitute a speed trap, which is a violation of California State law.
The city of San Diego recently added three new courtrooms just to handle red-light camera cases, which now are the number one traffic violation in San Diego County, and has so far this year, netted the city over one million dollars through fines. The fine for running a red light is $271.
Oh, by the way, Lockheed-Martin gets $70 off the top for each and every ticket issued by its cameras.
(And forget about doctoring your license plate to fool the camera. The operators use digital imaging software on PCs to enhance even the worst pictures. Masking of the plate has no useful effect. The only sure way to avoid getting caught, is to remove the car's front license plate.)
I think you greatly underestimate the abilities of both the technologies and the technologists to, if not kill this content-control scheme, then at least to mortally wound it.
The most dangerous tool available which can be used to overcome any content-control, inasfar as computers are concerned, is a compiler. The most dangerous group of people in this context are programmers.
If the content control is of the type which merely depends on a "Go-no-go" decision, then it is little more than trivial to ensure, through changes in code, that the favorable path is always taken: often only one opcode need be changed.
If access to the controlled content is dependent on a key, then, given that, for practicality in the consumer market, all devices must use the same key for any given content, all that is needed to unlock the content is one key!
How difficult would it be, and how long would it take, to discover that key, using the programming power of the very same technologies and technologists which made possible the lock protected by that key?
The obvious method of attack in this case is to use a networked group of computers to brute-force try the 'lock' ala Distributed Net: try all possible keys. Once the key is dicovered, all content requiring that key is available to anyone with a copy of the key.
My point is that it seems that any practical content-control scheme used in the consumer market will have to depend, at some point in its process, on one easily (by today's standards) influenced decision: "Is the password correct?" or "Is this the right key?"
The only way to really prevent meaningful circumvention of content-control, is to take away the very same tools from the very same people responsible for the creation and implentation of those control schemes in the first place.
That's you and I, ladies and gentleman. And that's all of our development tools. The people represented by Slashdot would have to be put out of business, if not under lock and key, themselves.
At any rate, the period of time that will pass before any such content-control technology is rendered useless, will depend on the value of the content. It is possible that the actual value of the controlled content will lose much of, if not all, of its value because of its "protection". In that case, who will care that it is lost to the mass market? How bad do we really care about music by the Backstreet Boys? On the other hand, content which is deemed valuable to the mass market, or at least, to the greatest segment of that market, will be more quickly wrested from any controls.
Gee, what happens when people get so tired of this nonsense that they just quit going to movies, watching TV, buying music, etc?
Will that ever happen? The cynical say "Never". But, at this rate, such commercial "entertainment" (a term I use loosely, usually preceded by the word 'mindless') will, in the not-too-distant future be affordable only by those who own and control it.
Maybe it's time we revert to the practice of people producing art because they are compelled to, not because they are paid to. When artists are paid only on commission, or for a live performance. That is, they earn their living like the rest of us, based solely on the merit of their work - as judged by others.
And don't anyone spout that tired old line about how no one will create without getting paid to do so. That would mean that no one, anywhere, ever created purely for the joy and satisfaction of seeing their imagination realized - not to mention such a theory invalidating the whole Free Software movement.
Art is not an endeavor in which one should expect to "Earn a living". It is a gift which the artist willingly and lovingly shares with others. His expected reward comes from self-satisfaction, and, hopefully, the appreciation of his audience.
Any artist who would give up his art because no one would pay for it, is most likely a very poor artist.
One can temporarily possess; one can temporarily use. One cannot own.
The defining proof of this: Everyone dies. And that which was possessed or used is passed back to the world at large, to be temporarily possessed or used by another.
Maybe as more people understand this simple concept, we will see a tendency toward creating out of the love for the creative process itself, and as a gift to oneself, rather than for the temporal rewards of selfish ownership, control, power, and financial reward.
However, while the self-satisfaction gained in a creative endeavor should, idealy, be sufficient, also being credited as the original author of a work is not an overvalued reward, in itself.
While I don't think the world is ready to enter this level of self-contentment just yet (I know I'm not, my world still requires money), and I don't mean to come off as an unrealistic idealist or elitist, I do see this as the solution toward which the path of advancing technology will ultimately lead us.
The current path, followed by many wealthy individuals and corporations, who would divide the creative efforts of all the world among themselves while not even being the original authors of that creativity, is littered with the victims of intellectual theft at the hands of those who follow it, and leads only to a dead end.
This second path is the one which points in the direction of a virtual cessation of creativity, as that land will have already been parceled out.
I seem to remember a court decision in a case against a very large ISP (AOL or Prodigy?) which held that the ISP was liable for posters' comments, only because that ISP already had an existing policy of regular censorship.
By the way, all the talk about how Andover/Slashdot should be held faultless because thay are a common carrier is nonsense. Slashdot is no more a common carrier than the NY Times.
If copyrighted material were published, in whole, in a story in a newspaper or pulp magazine without the copyright holder's permission, you can bet that that periodical would be sued.
On the other hand, I think that trying to copyright openly published, globally accessible, and freely accessible (as in free beer) material, and then trying to claim it as both copyrighted (for purposes of redistribution) and a trade secret is a ludicrous, although creative abuse of intellectual property laws.
The gist of M$'s license is:
M$an is standing on a corner. StrangerA walks by.
M$an: "Pssst. I have a secret. I'll tell you if you promise not to tell anyone else."
Stranger A: "Okay, what's the secret?"
M$an tells StrangerA the secret.
StrangerB walks by.
M$an: "Hey. I have a secret. I'll tell it to you, but only if you promise not to tell anyone else."
StrangerB: Sure. Tell me the secet."
Another stranger walks by.
M$an: "Hello maam..."
...
I personally consider divulging the secret to be at worst, given that the secret is actually copyrightable, an act of civil disobedience. Consider that, under Brittish law of the time, the American Revolution was against the law. At one time in the U.S it was illegal for a black man or woman to drink from a water fountain designated as being for whites only. Yeah, it's shame those laws were broken!
Another thing, how can M$ claim any rights under DCMA when DCMA has not ever gone into effect yet?
After all, it is now virtually public information. Anyone with access to a Web browser can get this document.
I would think that making the spec publically available to anyone in the world (through a globally accessible medium: the Internet) would invalidate any portion of the license which requires the "licensee" to limit access to the document.
It is contradictory for M$ to release information within a global forum accessible to anyone, but then to require others to limit access to the same material.
It's no longer secret; M$ released the information itself - it wasn't leaked or stolen; it was done publically; it was done globally; it was done purposefully: it's no longer a trade secret.
I suppose M$ is within its rights to limit the use of the information in any commercial way, but what is to stop anyone from implementing the effects of the spec in a different, but compatible manner? Isn't that what Samba does - implements SMB without using M$'s proprietary code?
And this is an interface specification, yes? Is it illegal to implement or make use of an interface? It's not code, per se.
The specific brand name electrical outlets in my house are probably protected under some intellectual property laws, but I need not obtain either a license or permission from the manufacturer to plug any device into that outlet. I am not restricted to using only appliances made by, or authorized by, the maker of the electrical outlet.
I really think Microsoft is trying to make up its own laws here (again).
It is not inconceivable that someone less sympathetic to the Open Source/Free Software movement will buy a company holding such patents.
What is to prevent the new owner(s) from deciding to require royalties from, at least, all new users of their newly acquired technology, or futher restricting existing users. It has happened before.
Also, if the intent of the patent is to protect against patents (an anti-patent as the GPL is an anti-license), what is the point of punishing those who wish to make money (as in a living) from their work?
This would seem less unacceptable (I am opposed, in principal, to software patents) if any clauses regarding non-Linux compatible or proprietary use were dropped.
After all, the GPL explicitly protects the user of the work, not the creator. There is no such restriction in the GPL regarding commercialization of code, only proprietizaton of code.
It seems that patents speak more about ownership of ideas, and the ability to capitalize (through licensing) on such ownership. So, an anti-patent would prevent private ownership of an idea by making its owner, in effect, the entire community. The net effect prevents private ownership of that and similar ideas by others who would restrict the use of those ideas (as opposed to restricting the use of the product implementing the idea).
I don't see a need to try and prevent proprietary use of an idea with an anti-patent. That is already covered under Open Source licenses like the GPL.
The restrictions on use by non-Linux, or closed OS users also seems silly for pretty much the same reasons. Such patents would seem to discourage cross-platform software development. This seems a bit more anti-Microsoft than pro-Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
I found this wording found in the last paragraph interesting:
"UNIX is used pursuant to an exclusive license with The Open Group and is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other countries."
Am I misreading this or is SCO now claiming that they, and only they, have the right to use the UNIX mark? I guess if their story is that they already own all UNIXes everywhere (and their derivatives) then this attitude makes sense to them.
I've been doing this for at least the last five years. I use a 3Com 3C886 56K LAN Modem: 4-port (+1 cross-over) hub, DHCP, NAT, Weblett access, etc.) firewalled by a Netgear FVS318 Firewall/router.
I regularly run at least three PCs on this connection, and have had up to six Internet connections up at a time with no practical loss of speed (seat-of-the-pants benchmarking - the only kind that counts in the real world).
The best part of using one of these rather than a standard modem is the elimination of all that PPP nonsense. The ethernet connection is much easier to setup and manage. Also, I have noticed that with using the LANmodem, I have fewer disconnects than I did with my modem.
The downside to the 3Com product is its cost. I wish the Actiontec had been around when I got my 3Com - it's a third the price. And with a hub or switch, who needs more than one port anyway.
I'm going to be looking into getting one of these for each of my friends and relatives who, like me, cannot yet afford broadband.
Not only does this belong on Slashdot, it belongs on the Kernel list as well. I don't think many people really understand the implications of the BK license: At this point, neither can Linus nor any other kernel developer that used BK, ever, ever work on anything that even smells like it came from the same planet as BitKeeper. For the rest of their lives!
And by implication, it also means that the Linux kernel itself can never contain anything remotely like BitKeeper without violating the BK license. Surely, this is not a good precedent.
Now, while many may say "The License be damned." or "The license does not appy in my country.", polluting any portion of Linux with such greedy, anticompetitive hogwash bodes nothing but trouble in Linux's future. We already have enough bad PR to contend with in that ridiculous SCO thing.
Why didn't I think of that. Those Japanese always come up with the really cool ideas first! And to think, all this time I've been using the copy machine in the public library.
There's the rub: The copyright holder has the right to distribute, and enforce its property, not the RIAA.
Unless, of course there is a legal document authorizing the RIAA to enforce the copyright holders' rights.
Here's a creative way of removing or changing any potential SCO code in Linux:
1) A Linux kernel-savvy hacker signs SCO NDA
2) Hacker looks at SCO "evidence".
3) Hacker emails kernel list saying: "I can't tell you what the SCO code looks like, but this code in the kernel needs to be removed or changed right now."
4) Some kernel code get changed - new release. Problem solved.
Actually your post should have been moderated as +5: Funny! ;)
In fact, the Corporate version of XP Pro is easily obtainable and installs and runs just fine without any authentication required. I suspect that there are more pirated copies of XP Pro in Home-userland than legitimate retail versions (corporate use notwithstanding).
And yes, both SP1 and OfficeXP SP1 can be installed (via some slick little trojan authentication apps) on the pirated XP.
"I live in the Bay Area. There are cameras on top of every intersection's stoplights, to make sure nobody runs a red light (funny, I personally have never noticed rampant red-light-running, even before the cameras).
"The traffic/stoplight cameras are over the line too, but they're very hard to protest nonviolently (they're 25 feet in the air and I'm in my car -- what to do?)"
We have the start of the same thing in San Diego. But recently all of the cameras were turned off by the San Diego Police Department, pending an investigation.
Seems Lockheed-Martin (the owner and installer of the proprietary camera system) had sole descretion as to which intersections to monitor. Last week it was found out that they had put cameras not at intersections with histories of accidents, but only at those with either high traffic, or short yellow lights.
At several other monitored intersections, Lockheed-Martin's installers adjusted the yellow light times to be shorter than required by law. Some yellow lights were shortened to less than three seconds.
It has been reported that both the City of San Diego and Lockheed-Martin have received so far this year, over $1,750,000 in revenue from red-light camera tickets. Lockheed-Martin gets $70.00 from each $271 fine paid for running a red light in San Diego.
If you believe that you have done nothing wrong, and therefore have nothing to fear, remember -
That you have done wrong is not for you to decide, but rather it will be determined for you, by someone whom you do not know.
It is society's right to protect you from your own ignorance.
The problems are several:
Lockheed-Martin moved the sensors such that they flagged a car as going through a red light, when in fact, it had actually stopped at the intersection. Consider how many more cars will be photographed if the virtual intersection is widened in one or both directions by a couple of feet.
There is no accountability as to the method(s) used to determine whether a car had gone through an intersection or not. A photo, by itself is not sufficient. These are not videos, these are cropped still pictures showing a motionless car at the time it crossed an unspecified and unknown boundary. People have been ticketed while stopped at a red light. The sensors said they ran the red light, when in fact they had not.
There is no picture of the traffic signal. The cameras are actually pointing down so as to catch both the license plate and driver's face of the offending vehicle. The sensors measure the position of the car relative to the timing of the signal. The placement of the sensors is critical to accurate measurement of the cars' position relative to the state of the traffic light.
There is a reason that limit lines are painted at controlled intersections. A motorist has a reasonable expectation that the camera's virtual limit lines are in the same plane as their painted counterparts. Also, in California, it is legal to make a right turn against a red light (after stopping first). There is no means of knowing whether the camera takes this into consideration.
These are closed systems. They are not open to inspection, validation or critique by third parties, or even by the city. They can be as arbitrary in their measurements as the vendor can get away with. In the case of San Diego, Lockheed-Martin was caught.
Lockheed-Martin has no business getting a bounty on every motorist who runs a red light. That is a clear a flagrant conflict of interest. Imagine what kind of mess we will be in when electronic voting takes place if such closed proprietary systems are implemented by corporations with a vested interest in the outcome of the final tally.
Don't kid yourself. Photographs can be and are often manipulated to lie. We have whole entertainment and marketing industries built around this very fact. And they make a LOT of money.
San Diego's red-light camera system is a good example of why letting Corporate America enforce laws might be a bad idea.
Last week, the San Diego Police Department turned off all red-light cameras in the the city, pending an investigation into the cameras' accuracy. Other cities in San Diego County may follow the city of San Diego's lead soon.
It was found out that the manufacturer and owner of all of the county's red-light cameras, Lockheed-Martin, had "Recalibrated" camera sensors at several of the busiest intersections in the city. This recalibration resulted in a substantial increase in the number of motorists ticketed, many from false positives resulting from the tweaked sensor settings. Many motorists were actually ticketed for going through green lights after being stopped for the red light.
It has also been discovered that many of the yellow lights at intersections are timed shorter than state law dictates, although Lockheed-Martin is not implicated in this problem.
The adjustments to the camera sensors were done without the permission, supervision, or even knowledge of the city of San Diego or its police department.
An independent investigative firm will be hired by the city to determine if any other cameras have been tampered with by Lockheed-Martin.
All motorists who received citations at these intersections will have their traffic cases dismissed (many retroactively) and their fines cancelled.
Because the cameras are actually owned and operated by Lockheed-Martin, who claim that the technology used is proprietary, and therefore secret, it is not possible for an accused driver to challenge a ticket in court on the basis of the camera systems being wrongly designed, calibrated or maintained. Unlike radar guns, there is no way to request documentation on the status of any given camera from the vendor or operator.
Several court cases regarding the legality of these cameras are pending. Some tickets have been dismissed because the courts found them to constitute a speed trap, which is a violation of California State law.
The city of San Diego recently added three new courtrooms just to handle red-light camera cases, which now are the number one traffic violation in San Diego County, and has so far this year, netted the city over one million dollars through fines. The fine for running a red light is $271.
Oh, by the way, Lockheed-Martin gets $70 off the top for each and every ticket issued by its cameras.
(And forget about doctoring your license plate to fool the camera. The operators use digital imaging software on PCs to enhance even the worst pictures. Masking of the plate has no useful effect. The only sure way to avoid getting caught, is to remove the car's front license plate.)
I think you greatly underestimate the abilities of both the technologies and the technologists to, if not kill this content-control scheme, then at least to mortally wound it.
The most dangerous tool available which can be used to overcome any content-control, inasfar as computers are concerned, is a compiler. The most dangerous group of people in this context are programmers.
If the content control is of the type which merely depends on a "Go-no-go" decision, then it is little more than trivial to ensure, through changes in code, that the favorable path is always taken: often only one opcode need be changed.
If access to the controlled content is dependent on a key, then, given that, for practicality in the consumer market, all devices must use the same key for any given content, all that is needed to unlock the content is one key!
How difficult would it be, and how long would it take, to discover that key, using the programming power of the very same technologies and technologists which made possible the lock protected by that key?
The obvious method of attack in this case is to use a networked group of computers to brute-force try the 'lock' ala Distributed Net: try all possible keys. Once the key is dicovered, all content requiring that key is available to anyone with a copy of the key.
My point is that it seems that any practical content-control scheme used in the consumer market will have to depend, at some point in its process, on one easily (by today's standards) influenced decision: "Is the password correct?" or "Is this the right key?"
The only way to really prevent meaningful circumvention of content-control, is to take away the very same tools from the very same people responsible for the creation and implentation of those control schemes in the first place.
That's you and I, ladies and gentleman. And that's all of our development tools. The people represented by Slashdot would have to be put out of business, if not under lock and key, themselves.
At any rate, the period of time that will pass before any such content-control technology is rendered useless, will depend on the value of the content. It is possible that the actual value of the controlled content will lose much of, if not all, of its value because of its "protection". In that case, who will care that it is lost to the mass market? How bad do we really care about music by the Backstreet Boys? On the other hand, content which is deemed valuable to the mass market, or at least, to the greatest segment of that market, will be more quickly wrested from any controls.
Gee, what happens when people get so tired of this nonsense that they just quit going to movies, watching TV, buying music, etc?
Will that ever happen? The cynical say "Never". But, at this rate, such commercial "entertainment" (a term I use loosely, usually preceded by the word 'mindless') will, in the not-too-distant future be affordable only by those who own and control it.
Maybe it's time we revert to the practice of people producing art because they are compelled to, not because they are paid to. When artists are paid only on commission, or for a live performance. That is, they earn their living like the rest of us, based solely on the merit of their work - as judged by others.
And don't anyone spout that tired old line about how no one will create without getting paid to do so. That would mean that no one, anywhere, ever created purely for the joy and satisfaction of seeing their imagination realized - not to mention such a theory invalidating the whole Free Software movement.
Art is not an endeavor in which one should expect to "Earn a living". It is a gift which the artist willingly and lovingly shares with others. His expected reward comes from self-satisfaction, and, hopefully, the appreciation of his audience.
Any artist who would give up his art because no one would pay for it, is most likely a very poor artist.
Or a fool.
~cm.
One can temporarily possess; one can temporarily use. One cannot own.
The defining proof of this: Everyone dies. And that which was possessed or used is passed back to the world at large, to be temporarily possessed or used by another.
Maybe as more people understand this simple concept, we will see a tendency toward creating out of the love for the creative process itself, and as a gift to oneself, rather than for the temporal rewards of selfish ownership, control, power, and financial reward.
However, while the self-satisfaction gained in a creative endeavor should, idealy, be sufficient, also being credited as the original author of a work is not an overvalued reward, in itself.
While I don't think the world is ready to enter this level of self-contentment just yet (I know I'm not, my world still requires money), and I don't mean to come off as an unrealistic idealist or elitist, I do see this as the solution toward which the path of advancing technology will ultimately lead us.The current path, followed by many wealthy individuals and corporations, who would divide the creative efforts of all the world among themselves while not even being the original authors of that creativity, is littered with the victims of intellectual theft at the hands of those who follow it, and leads only to a dead end.
This second path is the one which points in the direction of a virtual cessation of creativity, as that land will have already been parceled out.I seem to remember a court decision in a case against a very large ISP (AOL or Prodigy?) which held that the ISP was liable for posters' comments, only because that ISP already had an existing policy of regular censorship.
By the way, all the talk about how Andover/Slashdot should be held faultless because thay are a common carrier is nonsense. Slashdot is no more a common carrier than the NY Times.
If copyrighted material were published, in whole, in a story in a newspaper or pulp magazine without the copyright holder's permission, you can bet that that periodical would be sued.
On the other hand, I think that trying to copyright openly published, globally accessible, and freely accessible (as in free beer) material, and then trying to claim it as both copyrighted (for purposes of redistribution) and a trade secret is a ludicrous, although creative abuse of intellectual property laws.
The gist of M$'s license is:
M$an is standing on a corner. StrangerA walks by.
M$an: "Pssst. I have a secret. I'll tell you if you promise not to tell anyone else."
Stranger A: "Okay, what's the secret?"
M$an tells StrangerA the secret.
StrangerB walks by.
M$an: "Hey. I have a secret. I'll tell it to you, but only if you promise not to tell anyone else."
StrangerB: Sure. Tell me the secet."
Another stranger walks by.
M$an: "Hello maam..."
I personally consider divulging the secret to be at worst, given that the secret is actually copyrightable, an act of civil disobedience. Consider that, under Brittish law of the time, the American Revolution was against the law. At one time in the U.S it was illegal for a black man or woman to drink from a water fountain designated as being for whites only. Yeah, it's shame those laws were broken!
Another thing, how can M$ claim any rights under DCMA when DCMA has not ever gone into effect yet?
After all, it is now virtually public information. Anyone with access to a Web browser can get this document.
I would think that making the spec publically available to anyone in the world (through a globally accessible medium: the Internet) would invalidate any portion of the license which requires the "licensee" to limit access to the document.
It is contradictory for M$ to release information within a global forum accessible to anyone, but then to require others to limit access to the same material.
It's no longer secret; M$ released the information itself - it wasn't leaked or stolen; it was done publically; it was done globally; it was done purposefully: it's no longer a trade secret.
I suppose M$ is within its rights to limit the use of the information in any commercial way, but what is to stop anyone from implementing the effects of the spec in a different, but compatible manner? Isn't that what Samba does - implements SMB without using M$'s proprietary code?
And this is an interface specification, yes? Is it illegal to implement or make use of an interface? It's not code, per se.
The specific brand name electrical outlets in my house are probably protected under some intellectual property laws, but I need not obtain either a license or permission from the manufacturer to plug any device into that outlet. I am not restricted to using only appliances made by, or authorized by, the maker of the electrical outlet.
I really think Microsoft is trying to make up its own laws here (again).
It is not inconceivable that someone less sympathetic to the Open Source/Free Software movement will buy a company holding such patents.
What is to prevent the new owner(s) from deciding to require royalties from, at least, all new users of their newly acquired technology, or futher restricting existing users. It has happened before.
Also, if the intent of the patent is to protect against patents (an anti-patent as the GPL is an anti-license), what is the point of punishing those who wish to make money (as in a living) from their work?
This would seem less unacceptable (I am opposed, in principal, to software patents) if any clauses regarding non-Linux compatible or proprietary use were dropped.
After all, the GPL explicitly protects the user of the work, not the creator. There is no such restriction in the GPL regarding commercialization of code, only proprietizaton of code.
It seems that patents speak more about ownership of ideas, and the ability to capitalize (through licensing) on such ownership. So, an anti-patent would prevent private ownership of an idea by making its owner, in effect, the entire community. The net effect prevents private ownership of that and similar ideas by others who would restrict the use of those ideas (as opposed to restricting the use of the product implementing the idea).
I don't see a need to try and prevent proprietary use of an idea with an anti-patent. That is already covered under Open Source licenses like the GPL.
The restrictions on use by non-Linux, or closed OS users also seems silly for pretty much the same reasons. Such patents would seem to discourage cross-platform software development. This seems a bit more anti-Microsoft than pro-Linux.