The only catch to mapping everything to the network server is that you boss will kill you when this server goes down, and no one can work because all their important files are on the network.
I've experienced this at company I worked for, I felt sorry for the sys admin when 100+ people went home because the main network switch melted down
(In this case the bad decision had been made by management not to have a back up switch, since they cost $100K each but the sys admin still had management breathing down their neck.)
We were provided with network drive "home" directories (which were private), I was one of the few that had my work locally and didn't have to go home. I backed up important documents daily (when modified by copying them to the file server), and friday nights I had a little program that zipped my work directory and through it on the fileserver.
You need a mix of 3 things:
1) A policy about who is responsible for back up, (usually sys admin provides infra structure, and the user is responsible for saving his/her files there).
2) The infrastructure / means to make backups possible (read file server with regular backup).
3) Educate your users (and management), ideally through training workshops.
Re:Linux, GPL and Copyright
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
"Without copyright, all code is open. Nobody can keep you from using it in any way you like."
No, you're mistaken because those who take the code are not required to release the source.
Copyright law protects both rights of the inventor and fair use by others.
With the GPL and copyright they are _forced_ to release any code based on GPL code.
Without it they simply take the code and release only binaries.
Re:Linux, GPL and Copyright
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for the discussion...
I would like to extend my position on Patents. (I will read your article)
Firstly E-patents are not necessary (in fact I think their just a reflection of too many lawyers). Secondly I agree that currently patents are being abused by large corporations to try and block competition (this is wrong).
But there is one overwelming argument for patents. Unless we wish to restrict all development to large companies and research institutes (with their own capital) there needs to be a mechanism to protect the small time inventor.
I used to think that Patents in engineering design were not necessary either, until I learned about the dirty world of venture capital from my friend. My friend developed a new device, that could potentially dramatically change the way automobiles are made. He has a working and extensively tested prototype, we're talking about a technical advancement and not some simple toy (you'll have to take my word for it I'm afraid I'm not at liberty to discuss what it is in a public forum with a person I do not know).
Fortunately he found a business partner with an understanding of venture capital and patent law. He was not convinced for the need for patents either at the beginning. What happened was that he followed the advice of his business partner (fortunately). He found that when dealing with investors (a) they would not consider investing unless they knew how it work (to a level of detail where they could have run off with the idea). and (b) that they only considered investing once he made clear he "owned" the idea and it was adquately protected.
In other words venture capitalists take the approach: tell me everything, then check if we can screw you out of your idea, then if not okay maybe we'll invest.
Sad but unfortunately true. I wish it were different, honesty would be nice. But then 2/3 of all creatures are parisites... (this probably accounts for most lawyers and venture capitalists;) ).
As for patent time frame... the original 17 years can be shortened somewhat since development cycles have been reduced. I think 5 years is too short though. A large company can afford to wait 5 years for a patent to expire. 10 years gives an individual a good chance at finding funding. My friend has been working at getting funding for the last 4 years and now has funding. It looks like with a 5 year patent he would be screwed now (all companies would just say we'll wait till next year).
Perhaps there is a need to distinguish between corporate and individual patents, or place conditions on a patent to require development with in a certain time frame for the patent not to lapse.
As for science and technology being publicly funded I think the idea is wonderful. The trick is convincing scientifically illiterate voters. The only thing I have to say is with a population that is not scientifically literate, that is willing to spend 117 million on a failed Hollywood production (Water world) and complains when half that much is spent on a NASA space probe... You're going to be hard pressed to get government scientific funding to grow.
So in this capitalistic market based society, if you need funding you'll need industry and business and they respond to their shareholders first. Their shareholders want a return for their investment. It sucks but logic and rational decisions for the common good, are far removed from the primary driver of the market: profit ( = self interest (read --> greed)).
As for getting more for our money, there are clear studies that show that publicly spent research dollars go five times as far as military research (corporate), but then the public doesn't send the republicans $100 000 political donations...
I think we agree on much, I'm just a little more cynical.
Linux, GPL and Copyright
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
I remind you all of a few things! Before doing away with all IP (ie, patents and copyright)
1) The GPL is based on Copyright law. The freedoms guaranteed by the GPL are enforcable through copyright law.
2) Some control of software _is_ important. Imagine you write some really cool software and post it. Some company or individual copies it and rereleases it as theirs! (how do you fight back without copyright?)
3)Those of you that know a little about Linux's history, know that Linus release Linux into the public domain through the GPL because it gave him the protection he needed to guarantee his right to continue to develop and use it. He might (understandably so) _never_ have released it to the public otherwise!!!
4) Imagine Microsoft or Some other company co-opted linux. Right now they cant do this because of copyright law.
5) Some software markets depend on ownership. The Gaming industry is one example where No IP rights = No industry = Less games.
6) Patents are another story all together. They are necessary. I have a friend that without a patent would have already had a design of his stolen by a big corporation. As it is they have negotiated with him fairly now and he can make a living from his work (and continue to have time invent).
NO IP rights = No GPL NO IP rights = No OS NO IP rights = No linux NO IP rights = No inovation and design
Don't misunderstand this. I see IP protection as a necessary evil. It is necessary to protect the creative from the corupt.
The trick is to strike a balance between the rights of the inventors and society as a whole to encourage development of technology without giving up on the benefits for society.
A shorter patent, copyright time frame (non-renewable) of say 10 years would be good. Product development cycles are ussually in the 2-3 year time frame + 1-2 years to find financing leaves 5 years to recover costs.
The 10 year patent is also long enough that big companies cant just sit back (refusing to provide capital) and wait for patents to expire (again screwing the inventor).
I think cooperative programming (OS) is great but at the same time I wish to retain control of my work.
Slashdot Mirror
I can just read the headlines now:
"Confused Hiker stumbles into Fusion Plant,
Quoted as saying: "I thought my compass pointed North!?!"
The only catch to mapping everything to the network server is that you boss will kill you when this server goes down, and no one can work because all their important files are on the network.
I've experienced this at company I worked for, I felt sorry for the sys admin when 100+ people went home because the main network switch melted down (In this case the bad decision had been made by management not to have a back up switch, since they cost $100K each but the sys admin still had management breathing down their neck.)
We were provided with network drive "home" directories (which were private), I was one of the few that had my work locally and didn't have to go home. I backed up important documents daily (when modified by copying them to the file server), and friday nights I had a little program that zipped my work directory and through it on the fileserver.
You need a mix of 3 things:
1) A policy about who is responsible for back up, (usually sys admin provides infra structure, and the user is responsible for saving his/her files there).
2) The infrastructure / means to make backups possible (read file server with regular backup).
3) Educate your users (and management), ideally through training workshops.
"Without copyright, all code is open. Nobody can keep you from using it in any way you like."
No, you're mistaken because those who take the code are not required to release the source.
Copyright law protects both rights of the inventor and fair use by others.
With the GPL and copyright they are _forced_ to release any code based on GPL code.
Without it they simply take the code and release only binaries.
Thanks for the discussion...
;) ).
I would like to extend my position on Patents. (I will read your article)
Firstly E-patents are not necessary (in fact I think their just a reflection of too many lawyers). Secondly I agree that currently patents are being abused by large corporations to try and block competition (this is wrong).
But there is one overwelming argument for patents. Unless we wish to restrict all development to large companies and research institutes (with their own capital) there needs to be a mechanism to protect the small time inventor.
I used to think that Patents in engineering design were not necessary either, until I learned about the dirty world of venture capital from my friend. My friend developed a new device, that could potentially dramatically change the way automobiles are made. He has a working and extensively tested prototype, we're talking about a technical advancement and not some simple toy (you'll have to take my word for it I'm afraid I'm not at liberty to discuss what it is in a public forum with a person I do not know).
Fortunately he found a business partner with an understanding of venture capital and patent law. He was not convinced for the need for patents either at the beginning. What happened was that he followed the advice of his business partner (fortunately). He found that when dealing with investors (a) they would not consider investing unless they knew how it work (to a level of detail where they could have run off with the idea). and (b) that they only considered investing once he made clear he "owned" the idea and it was adquately protected.
In other words venture capitalists take the approach:
tell me everything,
then check if we can screw you out of your idea,
then if not okay maybe we'll invest.
Sad but unfortunately true. I wish it were different, honesty would be nice. But then 2/3 of all creatures are parisites... (this probably accounts for most lawyers and venture capitalists
As for patent time frame... the original 17 years can be shortened somewhat since development cycles
have been reduced. I think 5 years is too short though. A large company can afford to wait 5 years for a patent to expire. 10 years gives an individual a good chance at finding funding. My friend has been working at getting funding for the last 4 years and now has funding. It looks like with a 5 year patent he would be screwed now (all companies would just say we'll wait till next year).
Perhaps there is a need to distinguish between corporate and individual patents, or place conditions on a patent to require development with in a certain time frame for the patent not to lapse.
As for science and technology being publicly funded I think the idea is wonderful. The trick is convincing scientifically illiterate voters. The only thing I have to say is with a population that is not scientifically literate, that is willing to spend 117 million on a failed Hollywood production (Water world) and complains when half that much is spent on a NASA space probe... You're going to be hard pressed to get government scientific funding to grow.
So in this capitalistic market based society, if you need funding you'll need industry and business and they respond to their shareholders first. Their shareholders want a return for their investment. It sucks but logic and rational decisions for the common good, are far removed from the primary driver of the market: profit ( = self interest (read --> greed)).
As for getting more for our money, there are clear studies that show that publicly spent research dollars go five times as far as military research (corporate), but then the public doesn't send the republicans $100 000 political donations...
I think we agree on much, I'm just a little more cynical.
I remind you all of a few things!
Before doing away with all IP (ie, patents and copyright)
1) The GPL is based on Copyright law. The freedoms guaranteed by the GPL are enforcable through copyright law.
2) Some control of software _is_ important. Imagine you write some really cool software and post it. Some company or individual copies it and rereleases it as theirs! (how do you fight back without copyright?)
3)Those of you that know a little about Linux's history, know that Linus release Linux into the public domain through the GPL because it gave him the protection he needed to guarantee his right to continue to develop and use it. He might (understandably so) _never_ have released it to the public otherwise!!!
4) Imagine Microsoft or Some other company co-opted linux. Right now they cant do this because of copyright law.
5) Some software markets depend on ownership. The Gaming industry is one example where No IP rights = No industry = Less games.
6) Patents are another story all together. They are necessary. I have a friend that without a patent would have already had a design of his stolen by a big corporation. As it is they have negotiated with him fairly now and he can make a living from his work (and continue to have time invent).
NO IP rights = No GPL
NO IP rights = No OS
NO IP rights = No linux
NO IP rights = No inovation and design
Don't misunderstand this. I see IP protection as a necessary evil. It is necessary to protect the creative from the corupt.
The trick is to strike a balance between the rights of the inventors and society as a whole
to encourage development of technology without giving up on the benefits for society.
A shorter patent, copyright time frame (non-renewable) of say 10 years would be good.
Product development cycles are ussually in the 2-3 year time frame + 1-2 years to find financing leaves 5 years to recover costs.
The 10 year patent is also long enough that big companies cant just sit back (refusing to provide capital) and wait for patents to expire (again screwing the inventor).
I think cooperative programming (OS) is great but at the same time I wish to retain control of my work.