From your sig: "Standing up to an evil system is exhilarating." --Richard M. Stallman
The one thing I've never understood about RMS is that he claims to both be an atheist and believe in evil. While I can see how a pantheist can believe in evil, I have trouble seeing how atheism and the belief in evil mesh.
Almost all GPL attacks can be refuted by one of two statements:
1) No company or individual has to accept the GPL in order to use the product.
2) Whatever your criticism of the GPL, if you reword that criticism to "INSERT PROPRIETARY EULA HERE", the GPL winds up looking 10x as good as the proprietary one (most journalists fail to ask themselves if the same criticisms applies to the proprietary licenses, and they usually do in spades).
The only legitimate criticisms I've found are those between Free Software license A and Free Software license B, not between proprietary and GPL.
" Reasonable being no more than the cost of the media + distributing it."
Where do you get that definition from? I think reasonable is any amount that does not prohibit the normal functioning of the license (you cannot charge $1,000,000,000,000 because none of your licensees could afford it, but charging as much as one normally pays for software seems to be a "reasonable" charge).
I believe GNU used to charge several hundred or a thousand dollars for medium containing source code back before the Internet became popular.
Actually, you _are_ allowed to charge a "reasonable copying fee" for the source code.
In addition, as others have pointed out, the _subscription_ is not what the GPL entitles you to, just the source code for the version that had the binaries, and even then they are allowed to charge a "reasonable copying fee".
First of all, most print runs aren't for 5,000 unless you're an established author. 1,000 - 2,000 is more likely for a new author.
In addition, you forgot to mention that since you don't have to sink so much money into inventory, you have more money available for advertising, so you have a possibility of increased sales. For example, if you had a $10,000 budget for a book, printing will eat up most of that, leaving just a few thousand for advertising/promotion. However, if you go print-on-demand, you can use all of the money to make your book the next big hit, and then you don't have to pay inventory costs until after you've already sold the books.
The machine itself doesn't. It's not like book piracy was that hard before these machines, though.
However, if you can get it past them, LightningSource.com will actually do this for you. You can just give them a physical book, and _they_ will scan the page images and make your book, including cover, print-on-demand. Now, if you aren't the official publisher, they'll probably call the cops on you. But the process you describe is exactly what LightningSource.com will do for you. I think they'll also mail you back the PDF they made so you can use it for other things.
My print-on-demand book is actually selling rather well. I'm #67 on Amazon.com's Computers&Internet new title list, and have just been picked up for distribution by Barnes&Noble.
Not a bad gig for not having any inventory cost whatsoever.
One thing that's kind of new/exciting w/ Print-on-Demand is that printing your book with LightningSource.com automatically lists your book in Ingram's catalogs, which opens up distribution channels to even the smallest publisher that were previously closed before. This includes automatic listing with pretty much every US-based online bookstore.
The publisher has to specifically make their books POD. In addition, there are some trim sizes and special needs that POD can't do. Color interiors and even BW photos are hard for POD to do, although some can. Also, I don't know of any POD printer that attaches CDs or other material to the books.
"Another way is to serialize all POD books, so someone will always get the F(irst)P(rint)!"
LightningSource.com and CafePress.com already do this. LightningSource.com adds a page to the back w/ a barcode and printing information, and CafePress.com adds a serial number to the book cover.
The problem with your idea is that the purpose of the bookstore is not to make _all_ books available to you, but to showcase front-list books from publishers.
Being on the shelves is one of the things that really sells a book. If there is no bookstore w/ physical books, the customer will want fewer books. You can already special order any title you want from a bookstore, or order it from amazon.com. Bookstores are all about browsing. If you don't have the titles already printed and on display, there's no real reason to have bookstores.
Ingram (a book wholesaler) is basically using it like you say w/ their LightningSource.com Print-On-Demand company. Likewise, Baker&Taylor (another wholesaler) has their own Print-On-Demand company.
Unfortunately, the industry is not sophisticated enough to really reap the rewards you are discussing. However, the technology helps _publishers_ a whole lot, as we no longer have to guess how large to make the print run.
You want cafepress.com. All you need is a PDF, GIFs of the covers, and you are ready. It takes about 20 minutes to set it up, and then just order a copy for yourself.
It's even more convenient for publishers, since you don't have any inventory cost whatsoever. This is the way I do it with my books, and it works out great.
If you want to publish a book, it's trivially easy to self-publish these days. You need to:
* design a cover * buy a block of ISBNs * contract w/ LightningSource.com or another Print-On-Demand dealer (there's lots of them)
The advantage of LightningSource is you get automatically listed in the distribution channels (you get into Ingram's catalog, which is then used to get you into Amazon.com and all of the other online dealers, and gives you a chance at the big retailers).
Buying ISBNs is simple, and you can get started for only about $400 + costs of cover design. You just upload a PDF of the book and TIFFs of the covers, and they are ready to print in the distribution channel.
CafePress.com, in addition, offers direct sales to consumers, including a website.
It's a great way to get started in publishing, because it costs next to nothing. See my sig for more information. I did it this way and my book is #67 of the Computers&Internet new releases on amazon.com.
"Ahh but you see here is the rub... Do they know more than I do? Why should I hang on every word they write. Why should I not trust in my own judgement and not follow like a drone."
I don't think anyone is advocating being a drone. However, I know I have to admit that Richard Stallman has taken a lot more time to think about the issues than I have. Sometimes it's best to follow behind a leader, because they have taken more time to be aware of the issues and their implications. Deciding whether you believe in ESR's or RMS's concept of open-source/free software does matter, in that if you agree with them in general, it's probably useful to agree with them in specifics, as they are probably more aware of the implications of those specifics than you are.
I don't think the argument is X or Y _must_ have Z license, but instead "it would be more useful" / "I would like it better" / "it would match my beliefs better" / "I would be more inclined to use it" if it has whatever license.
Philosophical freestyle has some dangers, especially for those who do not have the time to engage in it fully. I do not think that anyone has the time or background to do philosophical freestyle on all subjects, and therefore we often have to look to our leaders to help us out - which is why it is important to have responsible, ethical, insightful people as our leaders.
Actually, theoretically high-level languages have much better opportunities available for optimization because the compiler has access to more semantic details, and therefore can do more tricks on your behalf. Unfortunately, research in computer science has not been met w/ engineering in many instances, probably because we're getting so much out of chip engineering currently it's not currently worth the effort.
Why do you think RedHat switched to the Fedora model? Fedora is not meant to be a stable, production distribution. Even the non-test releases are still test releases. That's the whole point. They have "bleeding-edge", Fedora, and "enterprise stable", RHEL. They decided that maintaining a middle category that wasn't providing them with funds was a bad idea. With Fedora, they give a free bleeding-edge OS and get free testing. With RHEL, they have you pay for a solid OS and you get technical support.
It's actually a pretty good model, but not one my company can afford, so we are in the process of switching to Mandrake.
I have a _very_ nontechnical friend. I recommended he install FireFox to get rid of popups. He did, and now HE is downloading it and installing it on all of his friend's machines!
The problem is that many networks and networking applications assume a reasonably secure LAN - i.e. - that someone can't arbitrarily walk up w/ a computer and plug in. That's not necessarily a good assumption, but it's one that is made.
It also forces anyone who wants to hack to be in the building - i.e. forces you to get through physical security. If you can work on hacking from a parking lot, you're pretty screwed.
In addition, many networks assume that the interior is trusted - that good guys are on the inside. Things are left open in order to make work go by faster (hence, the reason for computers), and wireless negates that assumption that is usually made w/ smaller businesses. Honestly, why would you lock down a business of 3-5 people. What help would it afford? In a business that small, everyone needs access to all data anyway, so extensive security measures are simply a burden.
Finally, wireless allows attackers to use your network as a launching pad for attacks on others. Even if they haven't hacked into your servers, they can use you as a launch point for attack.
"The results are irrelevant, if you want to be considered a legitimate President you can't go to the courts to stop the votes being counted."
You mean as opposed to going to the courts to make sure that the votes are counted the way _you_ want them to be instead of the way the state of Florida wanted them to be? Similar recounts could have been held in states where Bush lost, but he decided to leave it as a decision for the state. When Gore decided that it was his decision, and not the state's, Bush got involved.
"After three and a half years what is important now is the fact that Bush is utterly incompetent"
I disagree. I disagree a lot with the President, but think he's done, overall, a good job. What's still missing is real spending reform and real border control, but he has done wonderful with the war on terror. In Clinton's administration we were hit several times on American soil by Saddam and Al-Qaeda (and many more off of American soil), and nothing was done. We were perceived as weak, and our enemies saw that they had a chance to strike us hard - so they did.
Bush has managed to take the fight to them, and done it with very few casualties. Note that almost all of the senators, even democratic ones, say that even with the 9/11 and senate reports, had they known what they know today, they STILL would have voted to go to war with Iraq.
What's missing in the media's publication of the senate reports are the findings that the information regarding the link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein are true, and that Saddam has been training terrorists, providing safe haven, providing money, and helping them learn to make bombs and chemical weapons for years. In fact, if you remember, in the Clinton administration, Bill Clinton bombed a Vx gas factory in the Sudan that was being operated by Saddam Hussein in cooperation w/ Al-Qaeda.
Slashdot Mirror
From your sig: "Standing up to an evil system is exhilarating." --Richard M. Stallman
The one thing I've never understood about RMS is that he claims to both be an atheist and believe in evil. While I can see how a pantheist can believe in evil, I have trouble seeing how atheism and the belief in evil mesh.
Great Post!
Almost all GPL attacks can be refuted by one of two statements:
1) No company or individual has to accept the GPL in order to use the product.
2) Whatever your criticism of the GPL, if you reword that criticism to "INSERT PROPRIETARY EULA HERE", the GPL winds up looking 10x as good as the proprietary one (most journalists fail to ask themselves if the same criticisms applies to the proprietary licenses, and they usually do in spades).
The only legitimate criticisms I've found are those between Free Software license A and Free Software license B, not between proprietary and GPL.
" Reasonable being no more than the cost of the media + distributing it."
Where do you get that definition from? I think reasonable is any amount that does not prohibit the normal functioning of the license (you cannot charge $1,000,000,000,000 because none of your licensees could afford it, but charging as much as one normally pays for software seems to be a "reasonable" charge).
I believe GNU used to charge several hundred or a thousand dollars for medium containing source code back before the Internet became popular.
Actually, isn't that what GNU used to charge for their source distributions?
Actually, you _are_ allowed to charge a "reasonable copying fee" for the source code.
In addition, as others have pointed out, the _subscription_ is not what the GPL entitles you to, just the source code for the version that had the binaries, and even then they are allowed to charge a "reasonable copying fee".
"But a block of ISBNs? What are you talking about? ISBNs are free."
Not in the US.
First of all, most print runs aren't for 5,000 unless you're an established author. 1,000 - 2,000 is more likely for a new author.
In addition, you forgot to mention that since you don't have to sink so much money into inventory, you have more money available for advertising, so you have a possibility of increased sales. For example, if you had a $10,000 budget for a book, printing will eat up most of that, leaving just a few thousand for advertising/promotion. However, if you go print-on-demand, you can use all of the money to make your book the next big hit, and then you don't have to pay inventory costs until after you've already sold the books.
The machine itself doesn't. It's not like book piracy was that hard before these machines, though.
However, if you can get it past them, LightningSource.com will actually do this for you. You can just give them a physical book, and _they_ will scan the page images and make your book, including cover, print-on-demand. Now, if you aren't the official publisher, they'll probably call the cops on you. But the process you describe is exactly what LightningSource.com will do for you. I think they'll also mail you back the PDF they made so you can use it for other things.
My print-on-demand book is actually selling rather well. I'm #67 on Amazon.com's Computers&Internet new title list, and have just been picked up for distribution by Barnes&Noble.
Not a bad gig for not having any inventory cost whatsoever.
One thing that's kind of new/exciting w/ Print-on-Demand is that printing your book with LightningSource.com automatically lists your book in Ingram's catalogs, which opens up distribution channels to even the smallest publisher that were previously closed before. This includes automatic listing with pretty much every US-based online bookstore.
"Is POD limited to certain books?"
The publisher has to specifically make their books POD. In addition, there are some trim sizes and special needs that POD can't do. Color interiors and even BW photos are hard for POD to do, although some can. Also, I don't know of any POD printer that attaches CDs or other material to the books.
"Another way is to serialize all POD books, so someone will always get the F(irst)P(rint)!"
LightningSource.com and CafePress.com already do this. LightningSource.com adds a page to the back w/ a barcode and printing information, and CafePress.com adds a serial number to the book cover.
The problem with your idea is that the purpose of the bookstore is not to make _all_ books available to you, but to showcase front-list books from publishers.
Being on the shelves is one of the things that really sells a book. If there is no bookstore w/ physical books, the customer will want fewer books. You can already special order any title you want from a bookstore, or order it from amazon.com. Bookstores are all about browsing. If you don't have the titles already printed and on display, there's no real reason to have bookstores.
Ingram (a book wholesaler) is basically using it like you say w/ their LightningSource.com Print-On-Demand company. Likewise, Baker&Taylor (another wholesaler) has their own Print-On-Demand company.
Unfortunately, the industry is not sophisticated enough to really reap the rewards you are discussing. However, the technology helps _publishers_ a whole lot, as we no longer have to guess how large to make the print run.
You want cafepress.com. All you need is a PDF, GIFs of the covers, and you are ready. It takes about 20 minutes to set it up, and then just order a copy for yourself.
It's even more convenient for publishers, since you don't have any inventory cost whatsoever. This is the way I do it with my books, and it works out great.
If you want to publish a book, it's trivially easy to self-publish these days. You need to:
* design a cover
* buy a block of ISBNs
* contract w/ LightningSource.com or another Print-On-Demand dealer (there's lots of them)
The advantage of LightningSource is you get automatically listed in the distribution channels (you get into Ingram's catalog, which is then used to get you into Amazon.com and all of the other online dealers, and gives you a chance at the big retailers).
Buying ISBNs is simple, and you can get started for only about $400 + costs of cover design. You just upload a PDF of the book and TIFFs of the covers, and they are ready to print in the distribution channel.
CafePress.com, in addition, offers direct sales to consumers, including a website.
It's a great way to get started in publishing, because it costs next to nothing. See my sig for more information. I did it this way and my book is #67 of the Computers&Internet new releases on amazon.com.
"Ahh but you see here is the rub... Do they know more than I do? Why should I hang on every word they write. Why should I not trust in my own judgement and not follow like a drone."
I don't think anyone is advocating being a drone. However, I know I have to admit that Richard Stallman has taken a lot more time to think about the issues than I have. Sometimes it's best to follow behind a leader, because they have taken more time to be aware of the issues and their implications. Deciding whether you believe in ESR's or RMS's concept of open-source/free software does matter, in that if you agree with them in general, it's probably useful to agree with them in specifics, as they are probably more aware of the implications of those specifics than you are.
I don't think the argument is X or Y _must_ have Z license, but instead "it would be more useful" / "I would like it better" / "it would match my beliefs better" / "I would be more inclined to use it" if it has whatever license.
Philosophical freestyle has some dangers, especially for those who do not have the time to engage in it fully. I do not think that anyone has the time or background to do philosophical freestyle on all subjects, and therefore we often have to look to our leaders to help us out - which is why it is important to have responsible, ethical, insightful people as our leaders.
Isn't it amazing that they are _still_ reaping rewards of games designed years ago?
It kind of makes you stop and think about the things you're doing today, and what they might turn into 10 years down the road...
Actually, theoretically high-level languages have much better opportunities available for optimization because the compiler has access to more semantic details, and therefore can do more tricks on your behalf. Unfortunately, research in computer science has not been met w/ engineering in many instances, probably because we're getting so much out of chip engineering currently it's not currently worth the effort.
Right, but I like more standard distributions. I don't have time to check WBEL's changes to see if they are beneficial, harmful, or neither.
Why do you think RedHat switched to the Fedora model? Fedora is not meant to be a stable, production distribution. Even the non-test releases are still test releases. That's the whole point. They have "bleeding-edge", Fedora, and "enterprise stable", RHEL. They decided that maintaining a middle category that wasn't providing them with funds was a bad idea. With Fedora, they give a free bleeding-edge OS and get free testing. With RHEL, they have you pay for a solid OS and you get technical support.
It's actually a pretty good model, but not one my company can afford, so we are in the process of switching to Mandrake.
I have a _very_ nontechnical friend. I recommended he install FireFox to get rid of popups. He did, and now HE is downloading it and installing it on all of his friend's machines!
The problem is that many networks and networking applications assume a reasonably secure LAN - i.e. - that someone can't arbitrarily walk up w/ a computer and plug in. That's not necessarily a good assumption, but it's one that is made.
It also forces anyone who wants to hack to be in the building - i.e. forces you to get through physical security. If you can work on hacking from a parking lot, you're pretty screwed.
In addition, many networks assume that the interior is trusted - that good guys are on the inside. Things are left open in order to make work go by faster (hence, the reason for computers), and wireless negates that assumption that is usually made w/ smaller businesses. Honestly, why would you lock down a business of 3-5 people. What help would it afford? In a business that small, everyone needs access to all data anyway, so extensive security measures are simply a burden.
Finally, wireless allows attackers to use your network as a launching pad for attacks on others. Even if they haven't hacked into your servers, they can use you as a launch point for attack.
It's a messy situation for system administrators.
Nah, man, it's almost lunchtime. He was asking someone to pass the mustard.
"The results are irrelevant, if you want to be considered a legitimate President you can't go to the courts to stop the votes being counted."
You mean as opposed to going to the courts to make sure that the votes are counted the way _you_ want them to be instead of the way the state of Florida wanted them to be? Similar recounts could have been held in states where Bush lost, but he decided to leave it as a decision for the state. When Gore decided that it was his decision, and not the state's, Bush got involved.
"After three and a half years what is important now is the fact that Bush is utterly incompetent"
I disagree. I disagree a lot with the President, but think he's done, overall, a good job. What's still missing is real spending reform and real border control, but he has done wonderful with the war on terror. In Clinton's administration we were hit several times on American soil by Saddam and Al-Qaeda (and many more off of American soil), and nothing was done. We were perceived as weak, and our enemies saw that they had a chance to strike us hard - so they did.
Bush has managed to take the fight to them, and done it with very few casualties. Note that almost all of the senators, even democratic ones, say that even with the 9/11 and senate reports, had they known what they know today, they STILL would have voted to go to war with Iraq.
What's missing in the media's publication of the senate reports are the findings that the information regarding the link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein are true, and that Saddam has been training terrorists, providing safe haven, providing money, and helping them learn to make bombs and chemical weapons for years. In fact, if you remember, in the Clinton administration, Bill Clinton bombed a Vx gas factory in the Sudan that was being operated by Saddam Hussein in cooperation w/ Al-Qaeda.