I would argue differently: When you can no longer buy computers without Windows, the market for computers without Windows is too small/unprofitable for a company to take advantage of.
I love it when people say, "Microshit is junk/sucks/etc." I always respond that Microsoft must be doing something right, because 90%+ of desktop computers around the world run Windows. There's a obviously a *market* for Windows software and with 90%+ of market penetration, I'd say that Windows is excellent (there's not many products and industries with marketshare like that).
You took a nap during the entire anti-trust trial, didn't you?
The reason that Windows runs on so many systems is, in part, because it came pre-installed. For a long time it came pre-installed because if a computer manufacturer shipped computers without Windows, the price they paid for Windows jumped so high as to erase the savings of not purchasing as many copies.
IBM tried to make another OS available (OS/2), Microsoft denied IBM access to Windows 95 long enough that IBM was late to enter that market and lost a great deal of money.
For doing something as innocent as shipping an alternative web browser companies
Windows also dominates because it enjoys the network effect. The most popular operating system draws developers targetting the biggest market, which increases the value of the operating system, increasing its popularity. This has nothing to do with the quality of Windows, just the old adage that the rich get richer. Any possible competitor faces very stiff barriers to entry.
My local phone company has a market share in that area, but it similarly has nothing to do with quality and value and everything to do with having a (state-sanctioned in this case) monopoly.
At one point Microsoft did have to compete for operating system share and customers had real choices. Even with IBM effectively handing Microsoft a monopoly on PC operating systems they had to fight for their position. Unfortunately that was a long time ago. The claim that Microsoft continues earns their position is naive.
Perhaps you should review the
findings of fact from the recent anti-trust case. These findings remain the court's official judgement on Microsoft's behavior. While it focuses on web browsers, it does document their monopoly power and willingness to abuse it.
Before people post "Burn down the IP laws!", make sure you have a valid alternative that comes some way toward protecting the rights of creative people.
The whole point of this discussion is that a persons "rights" aren't perfectly clear and certainly aren't recognized as natural rights. If you're in the United States nothing in the constitution protects your ability to claim copyright. The constitution allows congress to create copyright, but congress is free to revoke copyright just as easily. Your belief that a creator has some sort of fundamental right to control how a work he sold is used it a huge assumption. If I make a chair and sell it, the buyer is free to make copies. If I make a program and sell it, the buyer isn't free to make copies? Why? Just because it's easy to copy to the software, but hard to copy the chair?
Yes, perhaps a world with intellectual property would destroy jobs and certain ways of making money. But many people would argue that new jobs and ways to make money will crop up. Even today musicians often make the majority of their money from concerts. Businesses will still need software, they can funnel their software budget to develop it themselves (or perhaps pool it with other businesses who desire similar software). The world would be different. Perhaps certain careers would not longer be possible. It would be a shame, but it's also a shame that telegraph operators and elevator operators lost their jobs. The world adapts, and to assume that you have some fundamental right to make money a particular way is insane.
Personally I like intellectual property laws in theory, but our current set of laws are too powerful and last too long. But I can see that there are reasonable arguments against any IP.
I have the luxury of letting politics influence my choice in software. I'd rather use OSS then stuff from a company that has been shown to usedispicable bussiness pratices.
That's not politics, that's level headed reasoning and solid business practice. Microsoft's licensing system gives them alot of power over you. To take just one example, they can force a software audit on you, and even if you keep perfect records it will cost you non-trivial time and money. If you don't trust Microsoft to use this power in a way you accept, it's only a logical business decision to switch aware.
Free Software also means Freedom from control by corporations you don't trust. Free Software means you don't need to trust anyone but yourself, that has real value to business or personal users.
In contrast [to Mozilla] Opera was... supporting CSS better...
Better? No, just differently broken. Maybe Mozilla doesn't support CSS counters, but Opera has it's own problems. CSS/Edge's Complexspiral Demo is mangled by the latest Opera available for MacOS and Linux. (I'm told the latest Windows release handles it better, but that's not an option for me.)
Taken on the whole Gecko has the widest support for the endless number of standards on the web.
It's not about restricting the rights of adults, but protecting the innocent and more vulerable in society, in this case children.
It may not be about restricting the rights of adults, but it sure as hell will restrict the rights of adults. If a society really values a right, they will protect it even when its hard or dangerous. The right to trial by jury and the right to protection from illegal search and seizure certainly means that dangerous criminals sometimes get off scott free. The right to bear arms dramatically increases the danger of shooting deaths, both accidental and intentional. The right to freedom of speech means children will hear speech that is extremely objectionable to the child's parents.
Assuming that working censorware could be put in place (this, of course, is a whole other discussion) as an adult would you not be prepared to waive your rights to view porn etc. over a public computer in order to shield children from it?
It's the "etc" in your sentence that is so dangerous. "Etc" happens to include birth control information, breast cancer information, sexually transmitted disease information, and plenty of other important information. Because any web site that repackages other web sites provides a potential hole through which censored content can be seen, every such site must be censored as well. Goodbye Bablefish and other translation sites. So long Internet Archive.
The existance of "working censorware" is not a "whole other discussion." If you're willing to assume that, are you similarly willing to assume the existance of a perfect judicial system and eliminate the right of appeal? The law has to function in the real world, not in a fantasy land were everything works perfectly. In practice this means using the currently available, massively flawed censorware.
Those readers who submitted this obvious bullshit to Slashdot should be ashamed of yourselves. A little dose of cynicism is mandatory to cut through all of the bullshit would be tech companies spew out.
Mai vs Peak sometime around 1991-1993. I'm unfortunately unable to find the full judgement on the 'net at the moment. The case went, AFAIR, as far as the 9th circuit court of appeals.
Thanks for remembering where my memory failed. A bit of Googling quickly turned up the ruling for Mai v Peak online. To summarize, the claim is that MAI licensed software to customers. Peak consulted for the customers . In doing so, Peak turned on the customers computers, causing Mai's software to be loaded (copied into memory). Peak has no license to the software and is not the owner of the software, so the copy is an infringing copy (at least, so the judge decided).
That's not quite as insane as I remember, but it's been awhile. I could have sworn there was specifically a case where, in part, a license agreement was challenged on the grounds that it wasn't needed, but was supported on the grounds that you needed the license to make any copy into memory. Perhaps it's just typical mis-remembering on my part. On the up side, Mai v Peak is only case law in the 9th circuit and does not provide terribly strong support for click-wrap licenses. Rather importantly, Peak was a third party who did not purchase the software. Things are very different when the entity which purchased the software wants to make a copy.
A new packaging could be introduced, where when you open the box you have a paper copy of the license and a sealed copy of the media, with a big, unmissable note on the media that says read the license, opening this implies you have read and agree it and agree to it.
New packaging? Old packaging. I remember the good old days when you'd open the box and find a paper envelope with the floppies inside. The envelope would have the EULA printed on it and a big "if you open this envelope you agree to the terms." While I still think it's shady (most people won't see the license until they get home) at least you had a hope that the store would accept the return.
Of course, in the really good old days Software Etc would accept returns within thirty days for any reason. Particularlly interesting to me as a poor kid was that I could beat most computer games in less than thirty days...
The GPL is not a contract: "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License."
I love the GNU Public License. That's such gloriously plain language. It's really the meat of the GPL. It's a bit formal, but plenty readable by the majority of people literate in english. (Don't read english? try a translation.) It's a darn shame it's buried halfway through the document.
While we're bitching about licenses, we could also stand to see some lawsuits challenging changing license agreements after we've agreed. Microsoft demands that users accept a new license agreement with more user hostile terms to receive security updates. Sony requires users accept new license agreements to continue playing Everquest. Tivo made their license agreement more restrictive. In all these of these cases the end user has a sunk cost (for the original operating system, game, or Tivo unit) whose value may suddenly be dramatically reduce (An operating system without any security updates) or useless (Everquest or Tivo without service). One side having the unlateral right to completely change the agreement suggests that the agreement is not a valid contract. Contracts require that both sides get something from the deal. If one side can destroy the other side's benefit at will, there was never a real benefit.
I personally was caught by this with my Tivo. I specifically chose my Tivo because Tivo had a very open and friendly service agreement. I purchased a Tivo ($300), and a lifetime subscription ($200 at the time). A year later I'm forced to agree to a new service agreement that forbids things previously allowed, increases what they claim their providing (previously they just claimed to provide guide data, now they claim to provide functionality actually provided by the box I purchased). If I decline I lose the entire value of my investment. Feh.
I suppose I learned a valuable lesson: no matter how nice the company, if the license includes a "we'll rewrite this whenever we want" it will eventually be rewritten "our CEO can come over and loot your apartment when you're not home, and we're cancelling your service you already paid for immediately for no reason." Nothing like getting screwed by a license agreement to drive home the benefits of Free Software.
Granted that the EULA's are a bit restrictive, but they made the software and are allowed to make whatever demands that they wish in the EULA.
Fair enough. Of course, if software publishers want to form a license contract with me they can do it just like everyone else who wants to form a contract with me. One paper. Signed by both sides before any money or product changes hands.
If someone got home to discover that the new car that they "purchased" was actually licensed, that they had to be able to prove ownership, that if they sold it on ebay their auction would be cancelled, and that they are forbidden to take the car to third party auto mechanics they'd be pretty pissed. Why is it considered acceptable for software?
Actually, the license can limit you to what you can do with the DVD, CD, or piece of software.
Oh, yes, a license can limit what I do. If there is a license in place. In general (with pretty much the sole exception of software licenses), licenses are printed on paper, presented to both sides up front, both sides sign off of them, and then the product is exchanged. There is some legal argument for "posted licenses" where the license is publically posted right at the place where you complete the transaction (say the license posted over the entrance of a parking lot). This doesn't happen with most copyright protected goods. I see no attempt of limitations on license until I get the product home.
No license was presented when I purchased by last few DVDs or CDs. No license was presented when I opened them. No license was presented with I used them. That only leaves some bizarre sort of implicit license which would really require legal support. No law creating such an implicit license exists. Just plain old copyright law which doesn't require licenses at all.
When you buy a book, a movie on DVD, or a CD full of music over the counter at your local store you have not entered into a license.
I do agree, software is, at the moment, different. The legal argument for it is weak, not national, and may be overturned. Also, some books, software, and other copyright protected works are provided under license, nice straight forward licenses. If I'm buying some specialized enterprise software I'll be presented with a license and a price tag. Until I've signed the license and paid the price (or at least promised to pay the price), I get no software.
For example, its illegal to watch your DVD under Linux with DeCSS based players.
Not because of a license or copyright law. (At least no license affecting you, the person with Linux, DeCSS, and a DVD.) There are completely different reasons: DeCSS came about because of a violation of a software license prohibiting reverse engineering (I said earlier that software licenses were different). This sort of clause is designed to protect a Trade Secret, and there is an entire body of law dedicated to it. Also, DeCSS violates the DMCA.
This is exactly my complaint about software licenses.
A software license is, in theory, a contract. But most contracts require both sides to review the license, both sides to sign off the contract, and both sides end up with a copy (so that either side can prove the existance of the contract in court). In general no product, licensed material, money, or knowledge flows from either side to the other until the contract is reviewed and signed off on. (Yes, in some places handshake agreements are legal. They're also much easier to contest because of the lack of documentation.)
Mass marketted software EULA is a cruel parody of this legit process. You give them money, but you don't know the terms until you've gotten it home and try to install it. When you install it they suddenly try to change things from sale of a copyright protected into into a licensed product. If you disagree you're supposed to spend your time and money to take the product back for a refund. Naturally no store will actually take the product back. If the store is in a good mood you'll be directed to the publisher. Of course the publisher will happily direct you back to store.
The honest solution is to ship software with EULA seperate, put a stack of EULA next to the software, and require me to sign off on it, right there in the store, before I fork over my cash. That would be fair. Of course, it means more citizens would take the EULA seriously and start wondering if it's really a fair trade, and I'm sure the software industry isn't interested in that.
The GPL is a license to software. Plain and simple.
Without a license, you cannot use copyrighted material. If you use copyrighted material, without a license, you are in violation of that copyright. The only matters before the court would be "did you use the software" and "are you licensed to do so".
You are operating on a popular but completely incorrect belief. This
incorrect belief grants copyright holders far more power than the law really
gives them. Copyright industries want to encourage this erroneous belief but
we need to fight back.
You do not need a license to use material protected by copyright.
If I buy a book, a DVD, or a CD I'm free to take it hope and read it, watch it,
listen to it, loan it out to a friend, destroy it, give it away, or sell it.
No license is needed or granted. The particular item that I purchased is mine,
the copyright holder no longer has any claim to it. What the copyright holder
does have claim to is the exclusive right to make and distribute copies. (Well,
the right to perform publically is also in there, and there are lots of complex
exceptions, but that's the gist of it.)
This is important and many people seem to have missed it: You do not need a license to personally use (read, watch, run, listen to, whatever) a copyrighted work you purchased.
Given this, the GPL is not a license to use the software. You're free to
use software under GPL without ever reading or agreeing to it (but you should
probably note the "NO WARRANTEE" clause). You can refuse to agree to the GPL
and use the software. The GPL only seriously comes into play if you want to
distribute copies. Normally under copyright law you cannot ever distribute
copies. The GPL is an open offer to let you distribute copies (granting you
more freedom than copyright law normally allows), in exchange for certain
behavior on your part.
Normal software licenses attempt to change your purchase of a particular
thing restricted by copyright into license of something you don't own. This is
completely alien to the United States copyright system. In a similar case much
earlier (around 1900 if I remember correctly) a publisher tried to put a
license on an actual book. It was soundly defeated in court. The legal
precedent for software End User License Agreements is pretty shaky, primarily
resting on a single case at a lower court level (district?) that rather
insanely decided that copying a program into memory to run was an infringing
copy and as such required a license. It could yet be overturned. If it does
get overturned traditional software will revert back to the same rules books,
CDs, tapes, and DVDs live with and do fine under. The GPL will continue to
work fine because it already assumes you have every right under copyright law
but offers you a license to do more than copyright law allows.
After all, anything written by a group called "The Cyberknights" has GOT to the authoritative!
The "group" in question is a business. Perhaps it's a slightly flippant name for a business, but given that I've done business with GODGames, Two Men and Truck Moving, and a host of other businesses with silly names, I don't hold it against them too much. No, they're not the most polished looking company, but having worked for a number of small businesses it's very typical. Most of the local consulting companies here look for less professional.
His educated reference to Star Trek really helped me to understand the situation, and make an informed decision.
Just because the document lacks the the meaningless business jargon of typical whitepapers doesn't invalidate it. It certainly doesn't justify your smear tactic of suggesting that the author is twelve and not worthy of consideration.
RISC OS is a windows-and-mouse based operating system. (from
RiscOS.com
That's a truly revolutionally design for an operating system. Most people base their operating systems on silly things like memory management, process scheduling, and hardware drivers. Basing your operating system on windows and and mice is so revolutionary it's stupid!
When I buy a CD with Windows 2000 on it, do I not then OWN that CD and its content?
Windows 2000 (and most other commercial software is licensed. Or at least tries to be licensed. That would be the screen full of legalese that no reads before they click "I Agree." Or the shrinkwrap license (although those seem to have mostly died).
Do you feel the same way about software?
Yes. But.
I'm perfectly in favor of licensing content. However, if you want to license something to me, do it the same way that other licenses are executed: in ink on paper with my signature next to it. People respect ink on paper contracts and licenses. They seriously consider the ramifications of signing their name. (Well, not everyone, but certainly more than consider click-wrap licenses.) There is certainly precident, most contracted software development and large corporate purchases still work this way. Nice legal contracts, both sides review it, changes might get made, then signatures are attached.
Click-wrap is just a cruel joke. I go to Best Buy and purchase a new computer game, a new movie, and some new music. I take them home. Clearly I own all three. I play the movie in my DVD player and nothing has changed. I play the CD in my CD player and nothing has changed. I play the game and suddenly everything changes? My purchase of a product becomes a purchase of a license? If I don't agree to the license I'm free to collect everything up, take my time and gas money to drive back to the store, and return it (well, try to return it, but they'll laugh at me and refuse)? And while with most licenses both sides keep signed copies, with software neither side has any evidence that an agreement was reached. The best they can claim is that someone used my computer to click an Agree button. Hardly the evidence that my signature on paper is. The court judgements supporting click-wrap agreements remain shaky and relatively untested. No national judgement has been made. For the majority of states there are no laws suggesting that this is a valid way to form an agreement. The system is clearly a farce and I can only hope it will come tumbling down. Once it does software will get the same protection most copyright materials do (Actually more, software is pretty much the only thing that can be both protected by copyright and patent.). That will be a happy day, and I say that as someone who works professionally as a software engineer. Pretending that we're somehow special and worthy of extra protections is childish.
Thats where the whole crap about they sell 'liscenses' to the movies come about. Legally you can lend, trade, give away, or sell a videotape, but since the movie it contains is only liscensed to you for a particular purpose (personal viewing or rental) you cant.
The belief that movies, music, or books are somehow licensed to you is incorrect. It's a popular misconception, presumably because the copyright industry wants people to believe it. Don't fall for it, the debate over copyright is messy enough without people bring incorrect beliefs into the mix.
If you purchase a DVD, a CD, or a book, you have a right to that particular DVD, CD, or book. In general you have every right to that DVD as you do to a chair you purchase. You can sell it, loan it out, modify it, give it away, use it, and let your friends use it. The only restriction of note on your behavior if copyright law. Copyright law says you can't distribute copies, that right is reserved for the copyright holder.
The copyright industry is spending alot of effort to manipulate the language of the debate. Their goal is to make the debate impossible by removing or invalidating the language of the other side. Don't let them!
I've been wondering about that. MacOS X makes consistent use of the bright, clean white pinstripe look that defines Aqua. Now many of their new apps use the brushed metal look. Can't Apple pick one and stick with it? They're both nice, but seeing both on screen at the same time is a bit jarring. Perhaps their are two rival graphic artist teams fighting for domination within the company? (And I suspect that many of these applications are independently reimplementing the brushed metal look, a great way to ensure that each app looks and behaves slightly differently from everything else.)
I do care if the government is spending my tax dollars on free software. I agree with your core statement, "What I do care about if it's the right software for the job, and whether the government will be more effective as a result of buying this software." It just happens that one of the many variables that should be considered is the openness of the software. What happens if the company you bought the proprietary software goes under or simply discontinues on unprofitable product? How expensive will it be to purchase the source or move to another platform. What is the risk of the company forcing you to upgrade to fix bugs? What is the risk that the company will refuse to make changes that you desire? Can you gain any benefit from shopping the source around to competing contractors to get modifications you require? What's the risk of facing an expensive audit? What will it cost now to minimize the cost of a potential audit?
Making a buying decision solely on the openness of the software is probably a bad ideal. But open source has alot to offer that needs to be weighed against the advantages of proprietary software. In particular open source helps limit risk, if all else fails you can take the source and contract with a competitor to fix or change it. Too many software purchasing decisions are simply "Which software provides the best balance of functionality now for payment now?" completely ignoring future costs and risks. That's an equally foolish way to purchase software.
I cannot believe that Project Gutenberg continues to use plain text as their source code! I can see why it would have been compelling in 1971, and it still may be true that there are systems out there that can only read 7-bit ASCII.
That's exactly why. Since 1971 a wide variety of encodings and markup languages existed. 32 years later the only system still trivial to read is plain old ASCII. Project Gutenberg is most interested in preserving the texts themselves. The texts are quite well preserved in ASCII. Sure, some formatting is missing, but it's relatively minor for the majority of books in question. And given the existance of this unformatted text it's alot easier to create formatted text than from scratch, so you even get a benefit there.
But that's absolutely no reason why the source shouldn't be marked up. Marked up source can always be converted to ASCII, but you cannot derive semantic markup from ASCII.
I think you're a bit confused on semantic markup. By and large publishers aren't interested in semantics of the documention, just the formtting.
Thus Project Gutenberg has inched ahead at a snail's pace. In its 32nd year of existence, the collection has only 6,267 etexts.
I prefer to phrase it, "Thus Project Gutenberg has raced ahead at an amazing rate. In its 32nd year in existence, the collection has 6,267 etexts, averaging almost 200 etexts per year. That works out to about one book every other day. This is more impressive given that in the first twenty years of the projects existance the Internet didn't exist anywhere near the form we take it for granted today. The popularization of the Internet has just accelerated the rate the Project Gutenberg grows. With the help of Distributed Proofreaders, a project that allows average people to donate small amounts of time to proofread just one page at a time, Project Gutenberg can expect to add over 400 etexts per year. Clearly Project Gutenberg is thriving."
Go and get the whole series of NEON GENISIS: EVANGELION , watch it with the 2 movies afterwards and then come back and say anime sucks...
If you're going to try and turn people on to anime, I suggest a few things:
Start with something small. Expecting people to watch ten hours of anime before making a preliminary judgement is a bit demanding. This pretty much means stand alone movies or series that hit their stride and show their strength within two or three episodes.
Start with something easy to appreciate. If they're into sci-fi and cool visuals Akira is great, dispite its many flaws (it's what got me hooked). You also can't go wrong with Miyazaki's work. Spirited Away is a good introductory work for people into fantasy and fairy tales. Princess Mononoke is good for those who want something a bit more edgy (but still fantasy). Fantasy gamers seem to like Slayers for humor or Record of Lodoss War for more serious works. For something serious that feels modern (but is sci-fi) Cowboy Bebop is great. If they're likely to be swayed by Serious Art, Barefoot Gen is an excellent look at the life of a Japanese boy coping with life after the Hiroshima nuclear blast. Grave of the Fireflies covers similar terrain, but I haven't seen it myself.
Dubs are best. Unless the newbie you're trying to convert is already a fan of subtitled foreign film they'll likely find subtitles jarring and a turn off.
Never start someone with Eva. Ever. Egad. They'll probably walk out after two hours of childrens television shallow plots and the whining main character. Eva takes too long to get into for a newbie. Of course, if they survive long enough to get into the interesting parts of series they'll feel distinctly cheated by the last two episodes of the original run, best described as "random crap we threw together hoping no one would notice."
Slashdot Mirror
You took a nap during the entire anti-trust trial, didn't you?
The reason that Windows runs on so many systems is, in part, because it came pre-installed. For a long time it came pre-installed because if a computer manufacturer shipped computers without Windows, the price they paid for Windows jumped so high as to erase the savings of not purchasing as many copies. IBM tried to make another OS available (OS/2), Microsoft denied IBM access to Windows 95 long enough that IBM was late to enter that market and lost a great deal of money. For doing something as innocent as shipping an alternative web browser companies Windows also dominates because it enjoys the network effect. The most popular operating system draws developers targetting the biggest market, which increases the value of the operating system, increasing its popularity. This has nothing to do with the quality of Windows, just the old adage that the rich get richer. Any possible competitor faces very stiff barriers to entry.
My local phone company has a market share in that area, but it similarly has nothing to do with quality and value and everything to do with having a (state-sanctioned in this case) monopoly.
At one point Microsoft did have to compete for operating system share and customers had real choices. Even with IBM effectively handing Microsoft a monopoly on PC operating systems they had to fight for their position. Unfortunately that was a long time ago. The claim that Microsoft continues earns their position is naive.
Perhaps you should review the findings of fact from the recent anti-trust case. These findings remain the court's official judgement on Microsoft's behavior. While it focuses on web browsers, it does document their monopoly power and willingness to abuse it.
The previous poster wrote:
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition wrote:
I can't see copyright, patent, or trademarks (the big three of intellectual property) as being anything but a monopoly.
The whole point of this discussion is that a persons "rights" aren't perfectly clear and certainly aren't recognized as natural rights. If you're in the United States nothing in the constitution protects your ability to claim copyright. The constitution allows congress to create copyright, but congress is free to revoke copyright just as easily. Your belief that a creator has some sort of fundamental right to control how a work he sold is used it a huge assumption. If I make a chair and sell it, the buyer is free to make copies. If I make a program and sell it, the buyer isn't free to make copies? Why? Just because it's easy to copy to the software, but hard to copy the chair?
Yes, perhaps a world with intellectual property would destroy jobs and certain ways of making money. But many people would argue that new jobs and ways to make money will crop up. Even today musicians often make the majority of their money from concerts. Businesses will still need software, they can funnel their software budget to develop it themselves (or perhaps pool it with other businesses who desire similar software). The world would be different. Perhaps certain careers would not longer be possible. It would be a shame, but it's also a shame that telegraph operators and elevator operators lost their jobs. The world adapts, and to assume that you have some fundamental right to make money a particular way is insane.
Personally I like intellectual property laws in theory, but our current set of laws are too powerful and last too long. But I can see that there are reasonable arguments against any IP.
That's not politics, that's level headed reasoning and solid business practice. Microsoft's licensing system gives them alot of power over you. To take just one example, they can force a software audit on you, and even if you keep perfect records it will cost you non-trivial time and money. If you don't trust Microsoft to use this power in a way you accept, it's only a logical business decision to switch aware.
Free Software also means Freedom from control by corporations you don't trust. Free Software means you don't need to trust anyone but yourself, that has real value to business or personal users.
Better? No, just differently broken. Maybe Mozilla doesn't support CSS counters, but Opera has it's own problems. CSS/Edge's Complexspiral Demo is mangled by the latest Opera available for MacOS and Linux. (I'm told the latest Windows release handles it better, but that's not an option for me.)
Taken on the whole Gecko has the widest support for the endless number of standards on the web.
It may not be about restricting the rights of adults, but it sure as hell will restrict the rights of adults. If a society really values a right, they will protect it even when its hard or dangerous. The right to trial by jury and the right to protection from illegal search and seizure certainly means that dangerous criminals sometimes get off scott free. The right to bear arms dramatically increases the danger of shooting deaths, both accidental and intentional. The right to freedom of speech means children will hear speech that is extremely objectionable to the child's parents.
It's the "etc" in your sentence that is so dangerous. "Etc" happens to include birth control information, breast cancer information, sexually transmitted disease information, and plenty of other important information. Because any web site that repackages other web sites provides a potential hole through which censored content can be seen, every such site must be censored as well. Goodbye Bablefish and other translation sites. So long Internet Archive.
The existance of "working censorware" is not a "whole other discussion." If you're willing to assume that, are you similarly willing to assume the existance of a perfect judicial system and eliminate the right of appeal? The law has to function in the real world, not in a fantasy land were everything works perfectly. In practice this means using the currently available, massively flawed censorware.
Those readers who submitted this obvious bullshit to Slashdot should be ashamed of yourselves. A little dose of cynicism is mandatory to cut through all of the bullshit would be tech companies spew out.
Thanks for remembering where my memory failed. A bit of Googling quickly turned up the ruling for Mai v Peak online. To summarize, the claim is that MAI licensed software to customers. Peak consulted for the customers . In doing so, Peak turned on the customers computers, causing Mai's software to be loaded (copied into memory). Peak has no license to the software and is not the owner of the software, so the copy is an infringing copy (at least, so the judge decided).
That's not quite as insane as I remember, but it's been awhile. I could have sworn there was specifically a case where, in part, a license agreement was challenged on the grounds that it wasn't needed, but was supported on the grounds that you needed the license to make any copy into memory. Perhaps it's just typical mis-remembering on my part. On the up side, Mai v Peak is only case law in the 9th circuit and does not provide terribly strong support for click-wrap licenses. Rather importantly, Peak was a third party who did not purchase the software. Things are very different when the entity which purchased the software wants to make a copy.
New packaging? Old packaging. I remember the good old days when you'd open the box and find a paper envelope with the floppies inside. The envelope would have the EULA printed on it and a big "if you open this envelope you agree to the terms." While I still think it's shady (most people won't see the license until they get home) at least you had a hope that the store would accept the return.
Of course, in the really good old days Software Etc would accept returns within thirty days for any reason. Particularlly interesting to me as a poor kid was that I could beat most computer games in less than thirty days...
I love the GNU Public License. That's such gloriously plain language. It's really the meat of the GPL. It's a bit formal, but plenty readable by the majority of people literate in english. (Don't read english? try a translation.) It's a darn shame it's buried halfway through the document.
While we're bitching about licenses, we could also stand to see some lawsuits challenging changing license agreements after we've agreed. Microsoft demands that users accept a new license agreement with more user hostile terms to receive security updates. Sony requires users accept new license agreements to continue playing Everquest. Tivo made their license agreement more restrictive. In all these of these cases the end user has a sunk cost (for the original operating system, game, or Tivo unit) whose value may suddenly be dramatically reduce (An operating system without any security updates) or useless (Everquest or Tivo without service). One side having the unlateral right to completely change the agreement suggests that the agreement is not a valid contract. Contracts require that both sides get something from the deal. If one side can destroy the other side's benefit at will, there was never a real benefit.
I personally was caught by this with my Tivo. I specifically chose my Tivo because Tivo had a very open and friendly service agreement. I purchased a Tivo ($300), and a lifetime subscription ($200 at the time). A year later I'm forced to agree to a new service agreement that forbids things previously allowed, increases what they claim their providing (previously they just claimed to provide guide data, now they claim to provide functionality actually provided by the box I purchased). If I decline I lose the entire value of my investment. Feh.
I suppose I learned a valuable lesson: no matter how nice the company, if the license includes a "we'll rewrite this whenever we want" it will eventually be rewritten "our CEO can come over and loot your apartment when you're not home, and we're cancelling your service you already paid for immediately for no reason." Nothing like getting screwed by a license agreement to drive home the benefits of Free Software.
But a minor's clicking "I agree" is more legally binding? Nope.
In fact, this is one of the many reasons why many web sites won't let minors register at all, they can't be legally bound to any terms and conditions.
Fair enough. Of course, if software publishers want to form a license contract with me they can do it just like everyone else who wants to form a contract with me. One paper. Signed by both sides before any money or product changes hands.
If someone got home to discover that the new car that they "purchased" was actually licensed, that they had to be able to prove ownership, that if they sold it on ebay their auction would be cancelled, and that they are forbidden to take the car to third party auto mechanics they'd be pretty pissed. Why is it considered acceptable for software?
Oh, yes, a license can limit what I do. If there is a license in place. In general (with pretty much the sole exception of software licenses), licenses are printed on paper, presented to both sides up front, both sides sign off of them, and then the product is exchanged. There is some legal argument for "posted licenses" where the license is publically posted right at the place where you complete the transaction (say the license posted over the entrance of a parking lot). This doesn't happen with most copyright protected goods. I see no attempt of limitations on license until I get the product home.
No license was presented when I purchased by last few DVDs or CDs. No license was presented when I opened them. No license was presented with I used them. That only leaves some bizarre sort of implicit license which would really require legal support. No law creating such an implicit license exists. Just plain old copyright law which doesn't require licenses at all.
When you buy a book, a movie on DVD, or a CD full of music over the counter at your local store you have not entered into a license.
I do agree, software is, at the moment, different. The legal argument for it is weak, not national, and may be overturned. Also, some books, software, and other copyright protected works are provided under license, nice straight forward licenses. If I'm buying some specialized enterprise software I'll be presented with a license and a price tag. Until I've signed the license and paid the price (or at least promised to pay the price), I get no software.
Not because of a license or copyright law. (At least no license affecting you, the person with Linux, DeCSS, and a DVD.) There are completely different reasons: DeCSS came about because of a violation of a software license prohibiting reverse engineering (I said earlier that software licenses were different). This sort of clause is designed to protect a Trade Secret, and there is an entire body of law dedicated to it. Also, DeCSS violates the DMCA.
About time!
This is exactly my complaint about software licenses.
A software license is, in theory, a contract. But most contracts require both sides to review the license, both sides to sign off the contract, and both sides end up with a copy (so that either side can prove the existance of the contract in court). In general no product, licensed material, money, or knowledge flows from either side to the other until the contract is reviewed and signed off on. (Yes, in some places handshake agreements are legal. They're also much easier to contest because of the lack of documentation.)
Mass marketted software EULA is a cruel parody of this legit process. You give them money, but you don't know the terms until you've gotten it home and try to install it. When you install it they suddenly try to change things from sale of a copyright protected into into a licensed product. If you disagree you're supposed to spend your time and money to take the product back for a refund. Naturally no store will actually take the product back. If the store is in a good mood you'll be directed to the publisher. Of course the publisher will happily direct you back to store.
The honest solution is to ship software with EULA seperate, put a stack of EULA next to the software, and require me to sign off on it, right there in the store, before I fork over my cash. That would be fair. Of course, it means more citizens would take the EULA seriously and start wondering if it's really a fair trade, and I'm sure the software industry isn't interested in that.
You are operating on a popular but completely incorrect belief. This incorrect belief grants copyright holders far more power than the law really gives them. Copyright industries want to encourage this erroneous belief but we need to fight back.
You do not need a license to use material protected by copyright. If I buy a book, a DVD, or a CD I'm free to take it hope and read it, watch it, listen to it, loan it out to a friend, destroy it, give it away, or sell it. No license is needed or granted. The particular item that I purchased is mine, the copyright holder no longer has any claim to it. What the copyright holder does have claim to is the exclusive right to make and distribute copies. (Well, the right to perform publically is also in there, and there are lots of complex exceptions, but that's the gist of it.)
This is important and many people seem to have missed it: You do not need a license to personally use (read, watch, run, listen to, whatever) a copyrighted work you purchased.
Given this, the GPL is not a license to use the software. You're free to use software under GPL without ever reading or agreeing to it (but you should probably note the "NO WARRANTEE" clause). You can refuse to agree to the GPL and use the software. The GPL only seriously comes into play if you want to distribute copies. Normally under copyright law you cannot ever distribute copies. The GPL is an open offer to let you distribute copies (granting you more freedom than copyright law normally allows), in exchange for certain behavior on your part.
Normal software licenses attempt to change your purchase of a particular thing restricted by copyright into license of something you don't own. This is completely alien to the United States copyright system. In a similar case much earlier (around 1900 if I remember correctly) a publisher tried to put a license on an actual book. It was soundly defeated in court. The legal precedent for software End User License Agreements is pretty shaky, primarily resting on a single case at a lower court level (district?) that rather insanely decided that copying a program into memory to run was an infringing copy and as such required a license. It could yet be overturned. If it does get overturned traditional software will revert back to the same rules books, CDs, tapes, and DVDs live with and do fine under. The GPL will continue to work fine because it already assumes you have every right under copyright law but offers you a license to do more than copyright law allows.
The "group" in question is a business. Perhaps it's a slightly flippant name for a business, but given that I've done business with GODGames, Two Men and Truck Moving, and a host of other businesses with silly names, I don't hold it against them too much. No, they're not the most polished looking company, but having worked for a number of small businesses it's very typical. Most of the local consulting companies here look for less professional.
I trust that Microsoft's educated reference to the classic video game Pac-Man helped your decision making process just as well? How about labelling the GPL, a license that only affects you if you chose to let it, as viral? Labelling Linux as a cancer? Implying that the GPL is un-american?
Just because the document lacks the the meaningless business jargon of typical whitepapers doesn't invalidate it. It certainly doesn't justify your smear tactic of suggesting that the author is twelve and not worthy of consideration.
That's a truly revolutionally design for an operating system. Most people base their operating systems on silly things like memory management, process scheduling, and hardware drivers. Basing your operating system on windows and and mice is so revolutionary it's stupid!
Let me reply in reverse order...
Windows 2000 (and most other commercial software is licensed. Or at least tries to be licensed. That would be the screen full of legalese that no reads before they click "I Agree." Or the shrinkwrap license (although those seem to have mostly died).
Yes. But.
I'm perfectly in favor of licensing content. However, if you want to license something to me, do it the same way that other licenses are executed: in ink on paper with my signature next to it. People respect ink on paper contracts and licenses. They seriously consider the ramifications of signing their name. (Well, not everyone, but certainly more than consider click-wrap licenses.) There is certainly precident, most contracted software development and large corporate purchases still work this way. Nice legal contracts, both sides review it, changes might get made, then signatures are attached.
Click-wrap is just a cruel joke. I go to Best Buy and purchase a new computer game, a new movie, and some new music. I take them home. Clearly I own all three. I play the movie in my DVD player and nothing has changed. I play the CD in my CD player and nothing has changed. I play the game and suddenly everything changes? My purchase of a product becomes a purchase of a license? If I don't agree to the license I'm free to collect everything up, take my time and gas money to drive back to the store, and return it (well, try to return it, but they'll laugh at me and refuse)? And while with most licenses both sides keep signed copies, with software neither side has any evidence that an agreement was reached. The best they can claim is that someone used my computer to click an Agree button. Hardly the evidence that my signature on paper is. The court judgements supporting click-wrap agreements remain shaky and relatively untested. No national judgement has been made. For the majority of states there are no laws suggesting that this is a valid way to form an agreement. The system is clearly a farce and I can only hope it will come tumbling down. Once it does software will get the same protection most copyright materials do (Actually more, software is pretty much the only thing that can be both protected by copyright and patent.). That will be a happy day, and I say that as someone who works professionally as a software engineer. Pretending that we're somehow special and worthy of extra protections is childish.
The belief that movies, music, or books are somehow licensed to you is incorrect. It's a popular misconception, presumably because the copyright industry wants people to believe it. Don't fall for it, the debate over copyright is messy enough without people bring incorrect beliefs into the mix.
If you purchase a DVD, a CD, or a book, you have a right to that particular DVD, CD, or book. In general you have every right to that DVD as you do to a chair you purchase. You can sell it, loan it out, modify it, give it away, use it, and let your friends use it. The only restriction of note on your behavior if copyright law. Copyright law says you can't distribute copies, that right is reserved for the copyright holder.
The copyright industry is spending alot of effort to manipulate the language of the debate. Their goal is to make the debate impossible by removing or invalidating the language of the other side. Don't let them!
I've been wondering about that. MacOS X makes consistent use of the bright, clean white pinstripe look that defines Aqua. Now many of their new apps use the brushed metal look. Can't Apple pick one and stick with it? They're both nice, but seeing both on screen at the same time is a bit jarring. Perhaps their are two rival graphic artist teams fighting for domination within the company? (And I suspect that many of these applications are independently reimplementing the brushed metal look, a great way to ensure that each app looks and behaves slightly differently from everything else.)
Making a buying decision solely on the openness of the software is probably a bad ideal. But open source has alot to offer that needs to be weighed against the advantages of proprietary software. In particular open source helps limit risk, if all else fails you can take the source and contract with a competitor to fix or change it. Too many software purchasing decisions are simply "Which software provides the best balance of functionality now for payment now?" completely ignoring future costs and risks. That's an equally foolish way to purchase software.
That's exactly why. Since 1971 a wide variety of encodings and markup languages existed. 32 years later the only system still trivial to read is plain old ASCII. Project Gutenberg is most interested in preserving the texts themselves. The texts are quite well preserved in ASCII. Sure, some formatting is missing, but it's relatively minor for the majority of books in question. And given the existance of this unformatted text it's alot easier to create formatted text than from scratch, so you even get a benefit there.
I think you're a bit confused on semantic markup. By and large publishers aren't interested in semantics of the documention, just the formtting.
I prefer to phrase it, "Thus Project Gutenberg has raced ahead at an amazing rate. In its 32nd year in existence, the collection has 6,267 etexts, averaging almost 200 etexts per year. That works out to about one book every other day. This is more impressive given that in the first twenty years of the projects existance the Internet didn't exist anywhere near the form we take it for granted today. The popularization of the Internet has just accelerated the rate the Project Gutenberg grows. With the help of Distributed Proofreaders, a project that allows average people to donate small amounts of time to proofread just one page at a time, Project Gutenberg can expect to add over 400 etexts per year. Clearly Project Gutenberg is thriving."
If you're going to try and turn people on to anime, I suggest a few things:
(And to anyone who has suffered through Neon Genesis: Evangelion, Toastyfrog's Neon Genesis: Evangelion Thumbnail Theatre is good for a solid laugh.)