It's a little disingenious to demonize McVoy (as he has and will be forever, now) because he was trying his best to develop a useful product while keeping just enough IP closed to make a (limited) buck.
It's not that; if he'd produced Bitkeeper under one license, and ignored the complaints and the reverse-engineering, people wouldn't have so much of a problem. But he kept changing the license, and it was always other people's fault. People couldn't disagree with his licenses without being "whiners", who he constantly complained about. His licenses tried to lock people in and stop people from writing other SCM systems. Mind you, not just reverse-engineering, but anyone who had the arrogance to actually write something that might compete with him, like Subversion.
Near the end, he wrote an "open-source" client (http://lwn.net/Articles/128222/) that was under a no-whining clause. When people pointed out that this was not open-source and a little rude, he said "But no patches, 15 out of 19 posts are about the license. [...] OK, whatever, but until someone makes that client better the license stays unchanged." So he insulted people (joke or not, and his response implies it wasn't) and then got annoyed that nobody ordered to stop whining ran forward to help. (Ran forward quickly, of course; it takes seconds to write a comment, but real time to write a useful patch.)
He's acted childish and petty the whole way through; that's what's earned him the reputation.
One of the prominent facts of Open Source programming history, going waaaay back, is that something that works good and commercial has to exist first to copy and replace.
Like what, Emacs or Perl? There's a number of examples of original open source work. I'm not sure there's much difference between the copy rate of Open Source and the copy rate of proprietary software; I mean, I'm typing into IE (Netscape, Mosiac) on Windows (Macintosh, Amiga, Xerox) and could run Microsoft Word (WordPerfect, WordStar, many ancestors).
Repeat after me; software must be bug-free. Nothing a user can do should be able to crash the computer. Nothing.
Right. Of course, that's one person's work, instead of many, so it's less important. But it's still important that programs don't crash the computer. When they do, you don't blame the user, you blame the program.
well not really the regions on DVDs are so some poorer regions can get cheaper DVDs and not cut into the profits of places where a higher price is ok
Why is Europe and Japan in a different region from the US? And Australia in a different region from either of them? Furthermore, Australia is in the same region as South America and Mexico, which is quite a disparity in wealth. If it'd been to offer better prices to poorer regions, the US, Japan, Western Europe and Australia would all be in the same region.
Someone hand edited one of the metadata files under BitKeeper control and the repository corruption propagated. BitMover had to put in special code and release a new version of BK that specifically checked for the problem.
Repeat after me; anything coming in over the Internet is evil. Never, never trust any information coming in over the Internet. Nothing an user can do should be able to corrupt the repository. Nothing.
This was an individual and company that doubled the output of main-line Linux development over a couple year span and the only thing asked was not to try to reverse the product.
Personally, I do not think that was too much to ask.
If you want the business community to not copy your product, then you better have legal safeguards, and even that often won't stop them. How can you honestly expect that the entire free software community would avoid trying to reproduce a sucessful product?
It's way, way too much to ask.
Either grow-up, trust others to do the right thing, and invite commerical enterprises into Linux passed just the shops that develop the big iron or doom yourselves to an existence where Linux only runs on servers and has no commercial packages avaliable.
So proprietary software producers are free to copy whatever they want--and you know they will--but you expect the free software community to roll over and play dead?
A marriage is between a man and a woman -- always has been.
Not in all cultures. In many cultures, men can sometimes marry men.
How many conservatives have to tell you they want fewer regulations and smaller government before you'll belive that at least some conservatives want smaller government and fewer regulations?
Duh. Some foo want small government and fewer regulations, for pretty much any value of foo. And in the meantime, after Carter, 6 trillion dollars of debt got added to the budget (and not during Clinton's administration, either). Isn't a balanced budget part of small government? What about a small military focused on defense? Isn't that part of a small government? If whenever the conservatives got in power, I saw smaller government and fewer regulations, I might believe it.
What state does this occur in? [...] That was 50 years ago - it was called the Red Scare. It has nothing to do with current politics.
Funny; you brought up fascism, but suddenly when history is turned against you, we're limited to the here and now.
You're intentionally leaving out individualism and limited government to try to prop up your argument. You know, people can have multiple priorities and give certain ones preference. Not everything is black and white in this world.
If they've given individualism and limited government a priority, then why mention the status quo and traditional morality? How exactly do they manifest? In my experience, they manifest exactly as I mentioned.
It's not possible to have a group with consistently ordered multiple priorities. There's too many competing viewpoints; subtlities get drowned out. Worse yet, you're mapping it to right and left; where's the bisexual polygamous libertarian and Baptist preacher who wants traditional morality enforced and athiests in prison go?
a conservative will weigh the destructive detriments of such extremists as being too far outside the accepted morality and put a limit on individualism at that point. When you have 299 million people on one side of an issue and NAMBLA on another, it's a good bet to go with the status-quo.
Lovely strawman. Given that there's 299 million people on one side, perhaps not only conservatives agree with your strawman?
What is at the extremes of what a conservative will permit? Should gays be permitted to teach children? What about communists, or liberals? Can the local S&M club parade down Main street (not showing any skin, but with whips and all)? Those are the questions that reveal how strong that belief in individuality and limited government go, not silly strawmans about NAMBLA.
how about being creative?... the money earned afterwards is just a bonus.
Not if you actually want to work as an artist as a full-time job. Then the money is a necessity. If you don't want to work as an artist as a full-time job, then the amount of work you can produce is limited.
Thought Police are the domain of the Liberal/Progressive (see also political correctness).
So all the people who are burning people at the stake for holding the wrong religion are liberal progressives? The most common form of thought police is religious, and they are usually all for the "status quo" and "traditional morality".
So when all those people were fired in Hollywood and elsewhere for being communists, it was by liberal progressives? Or were the people firing them, as commonly believed, conservatives?
A political ideology generally characterized by a belief in individualism and minimal government intervention in the economy and society; also a belief in the virtue of the status quo and general acceptance of traditional morality.
That's contradictory; if they're characterized by their belief in the status quo and acceptance of traditional morality, then they usually believe in government intervention to support the status quo and traditional morality. A group that was for limited government and individualism would unite individuals of all religious and moralities.
When they whine about speech what they are really whining for is a world with no reprocussions for their actions.
Yeah, that's what it always is. All those people who want to say something bad about the people in power and get punished, it's always their fault for speaking up.
These so-called radicals always want to throw stones at the government and big business and so on and apply the term "evil"
"So-called radicals"? Are you implying that the government and big business is always good? That they need no one to expose their crimes and wrongdoings?
but they never take any responsibility for what they do, only credit. Free will doesn't work that way. Your actions have consequences and speech requires action to convey it.
And what should the consequences be? Speaking out against a mob boss may get you killed; should we tell everyone whining about how their friend got his head blown off that that's simply the consequences of speaking?
Xenophobia is deeply ingrained in your genes, tribes of our species that lacked this vital feature were all slaughtered in prehistoric ages. We are just more or less trained to repress all actions resulting from it. Saying anything else, or calling someone names for it is a sheer hypocrisy.
If you act on your xenophobia, you're a bigot.
According to this argument, the US has every right to bomb the hell out of any country it wants, for xenophobic reasons alone, and no one should call us names or say anything about it. Of course, they have the right to act on their xenophobia, so I guess they can call us names.
By just taking it yourself, you have probably offended him, by being a foreigner, the reaction was multiplied.
For the reaction to be multiplied by the fact that he is a foreigner is sheer bigotry. The reaction as a whole was uncalled for; it was not a goal to cause offense, and in fact it was an honest mistake, and obviously so once apologies were offered.
Would you go in bar, ignore the bartender, pull a bottle from display a pour yourself a drink? I guess you would get thrown out of the bar by a bouncer even if you would be offering to pay for the drink.
Whereas I would expect that the bartender would be upset, but if you made clear that it was a mistake and you wouldn't do it again, you wouldn't have a problem.
There's a reason why the Soup Nazi made good TV and poor real life.
Your experience is definitely one of "cultural gap", not a "those people are unfriendly" one. Don't expect the shop keeper to have any respect for a customer who obviously had none for him !
Customs and cultures are complex and confusing. Only a fool would assume that a foreigner had no respect for him because he violated some minor rule of etiquitte. It's always better to start from the assumption that no insult was intended and work to fix the problem and educate the erring person. This is all the more appropriate when you can't reasonably expect the other person to full understand the implications of their actions, like a child or a foreigner.
I've never met anyone from France that was rude and refused to try to speak English -- quite the opposite.
But I've meet a couple people who found that very rude. A Swede I met on the net found that the attendent insisted on speaking English, despite the fact that his French was much better than the attendent's English.* My father went all around Europe roughly communicating in the local language with Berlitz guides. In France, the first person he tried it with rolled his eyes and said "Just speak English". I've heard from several people, including my father, that France is one of the few places in the world that they don't appreciate you trying to communicate with them in their language, and it offends those who try and make the effort.
My understanding is that bashing/hating people is a popular sport in the anglo-saxon culture
Let's start out showing our biases by bashing the Anglo-Saxon culture, shall we? We could ask the Algerians and Vietnamese how much love they felt from the French. Or how much love the Germans felt from the French at the end of WWI, when the Germans were slapped with six decades of ruinous, punative fines by the French.
Speaking of the Germans, and while we're at it, the Poles, Russians, Romanians and Arabs among others, why don't we ask the Jews? There are reasons the country with the most Jews in the world is the United States, and the US is only one of two countries in the world that is more than 1% Jewish.
We can talk about the deep abiding love the Hutus and Tutsis have for each other, and many other peoples, but I think I've made my point.
The result? a bunch of low res image in locked PDF (can't select and copy) of some two hundred years books
And it's far more important to culture to scan the latest Photoshop books? The reason you can't select and copy is because there's no OCR.
which have been stupidly spent for a totaly useless project!
The Gallica archive at BNF has been a wonderful source for Distributed Proofreaders and from them, Project Gutenberg, with BHF's blessing. Their scans have been far from useless.
there is a growing number of kids with genetic disorders who need extreme help and who are in the school system. These are by-products of tobacco and alcohol companies, kids of ex-drug users [...]
Wha? Alcohol and drugs don't cause genetic disorders; mutations and bad genes do. I don't recall tobacco causing any sort of birth defects at all; they certainly don't pound it into our heads like I would think they would if it did.
Most people don't want to learn "big words" such as "pyrotechnic", "facetious", "colloquial", or "penultimate" when simpler phrases such as "explosive devices", "bad joke", "local slang", and "second to ultimate" can be used just as well.
Swift said much the same thing. A linguist, Elizabeth Elstob, working on Anglo-Saxon at the time, used the preface of her grammar to rip his article to pieces and demonstrate the power of monosyllables in English. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/5/3/2/15329/15329- h/15329-h.htm
There's no benefit to saying 'cya' versus 'see ya' because it comes out, verbally, the same.
so what? writing things without capital letters signifies the same utterance; why did you use capital letters? and that gratitous apostrophe?
The English language, especially when it's being written, is already muddled enough without inviting new deficincies just because a bunch of fourteen year old kids are too lazy to type or waste too much time IM'ing each other on cell phones.
Their ancestors butchered the language in the name of typewriters, their more distant ancestors butchered in the name of printing presses; what's new? The hacky changes, like having no seperate key for 1 and 0 on a typewriter, disappear, the more sane one's stay. Or should we really still be trying to reproduce all the ligatures of monistary writing in our printing?
Evolving a language is fine, but it should be a purpose-driven evolution to the benefit of communication by informed people,
It's never happened. Probably never will, and that's probably for the better.
not a reversal just because your offspring are too lazy to communicate properly or are having trivial dicsussions over inadequate mediums.
It's not a reversal; English has never done this before. A poster on Slashdot has little grounds to mock other's trivial discussions, and in fact simple inter-personal relations are critically important to humans.
Language shouldn't be negatively changing to fit the medium, the medium should be evolving to adequately handle the language.
Again, the medium is evolving and most of the more hacky changes will disappear. But it's not like the old style was handed down from God; the reason written material looks as it does in part is because ligatures in printing is hard.
The traditional pronunciation (based on derivation and history) is simply ignored.
When has the traditional pronounciation been based on derivation and history? It's based on how things are actually pronounced. Frequently, when it's supposedly based on derivation and history, it's wrong: the t in valet was pronounced in the era of French that word was borrowed from, and it was pronounced for hundreds of years in English, until someone came along with "derivation and history".
Slashdot Mirror
It's a little disingenious to demonize McVoy (as he has and will be forever, now) because he was trying his best to develop a useful product while keeping just enough IP closed to make a (limited) buck.
It's not that; if he'd produced Bitkeeper under one license, and ignored the complaints and the reverse-engineering, people wouldn't have so much of a problem. But he kept changing the license, and it was always other people's fault. People couldn't disagree with his licenses without being "whiners", who he constantly complained about. His licenses tried to lock people in and stop people from writing other SCM systems. Mind you, not just reverse-engineering, but anyone who had the arrogance to actually write something that might compete with him, like Subversion.
Near the end, he wrote an "open-source" client (http://lwn.net/Articles/128222/) that was under a no-whining clause. When people pointed out that this was not open-source and a little rude, he said "But no patches, 15 out of 19 posts are about the license. [...] OK, whatever, but until someone makes that client better the license stays unchanged." So he insulted people (joke or not, and his response implies it wasn't) and then got annoyed that nobody ordered to stop whining ran forward to help. (Ran forward quickly, of course; it takes seconds to write a comment, but real time to write a useful patch.)
He's acted childish and petty the whole way through; that's what's earned him the reputation.
One of the prominent facts of Open Source programming history, going waaaay back, is that something that works good and commercial has to exist first to copy and replace.
Like what, Emacs or Perl? There's a number of examples of original open source work. I'm not sure there's much difference between the copy rate of Open Source and the copy rate of proprietary software; I mean, I'm typing into IE (Netscape, Mosiac) on Windows (Macintosh, Amiga, Xerox) and could run Microsoft Word (WordPerfect, WordStar, many ancestors).
Repeat after me; software must be bug-free. Nothing a user can do should be able to crash the computer. Nothing.
Right. Of course, that's one person's work, instead of many, so it's less important. But it's still important that programs don't crash the computer. When they do, you don't blame the user, you blame the program.
Do we really want people thinking, "well, i could get rich spamming but the punishment is pretty high, guess I'll just deal crack?!"
Yes.
well not really the regions on DVDs are so some poorer regions can get cheaper DVDs and not cut into the profits of places where a higher price is ok
Why is Europe and Japan in a different region from the US? And Australia in a different region from either of them? Furthermore, Australia is in the same region as South America and Mexico, which is quite a disparity in wealth. If it'd been to offer better prices to poorer regions, the US, Japan, Western Europe and Australia would all be in the same region.
How do you cite Wikipedia, when the content is always changing?
Every thing I've ever read about citing Internet sources said to include the date of download.
Someone hand edited one of the metadata files
under BitKeeper control and the repository corruption propagated. BitMover had to put in special code and release a new version of BK that specifically checked for the problem.
Repeat after me; anything coming in over the Internet is evil. Never, never trust any information coming in over the Internet. Nothing an user can do should be able to corrupt the repository. Nothing.
This was an individual and company that doubled the output of main-line Linux development over a couple year span and the only thing asked was not to try to reverse the product.
Personally, I do not think that was too much to ask.
If you want the business community to not copy your product, then you better have legal safeguards, and even that often won't stop them. How can you honestly expect that the entire free software community would avoid trying to reproduce a sucessful product?
It's way, way too much to ask.
Either grow-up, trust others to do the right thing, and invite commerical enterprises into Linux passed just the shops that develop the big iron or doom yourselves to an existence where Linux only runs on servers and has no commercial packages avaliable.
So proprietary software producers are free to copy whatever they want--and you know they will--but you expect the free software community to roll over and play dead?
A marriage is between a man and a woman -- always has been.
Not in all cultures. In many cultures, men can sometimes marry men.
How many conservatives have to tell you they want fewer regulations and smaller government before you'll belive that at least some conservatives want smaller government and fewer regulations?
Duh. Some foo want small government and fewer regulations, for pretty much any value of foo. And in the meantime, after Carter, 6 trillion dollars of debt got added to the budget (and not during Clinton's administration, either). Isn't a balanced budget part of small government? What about a small military focused on defense? Isn't that part of a small government? If whenever the conservatives got in power, I saw smaller government and fewer regulations, I might believe it.
They were passing unconstitutional bills of attainder
That's their job, should it be necessary
It's their job to do things that are specifically prohibited by the Constitution?
What state does this occur in? [...] That was 50 years ago - it was called the Red Scare. It has nothing to do with current politics.
Funny; you brought up fascism, but suddenly when history is turned against you, we're limited to the here and now.
You're intentionally leaving out individualism and limited government to try to prop up your argument. You know, people can have multiple priorities and give certain ones preference. Not everything is black and white in this world.
If they've given individualism and limited government a priority, then why mention the status quo and traditional morality? How exactly do they manifest? In my experience, they manifest exactly as I mentioned.
It's not possible to have a group with consistently ordered multiple priorities. There's too many competing viewpoints; subtlities get drowned out. Worse yet, you're mapping it to right and left; where's the bisexual polygamous libertarian and Baptist preacher who wants traditional morality enforced and athiests in prison go?
a conservative will weigh the destructive detriments of such extremists as being too far outside the accepted morality and put a limit on individualism at that point. When you have 299 million people on one side of an issue and NAMBLA on another, it's a good bet to go with the status-quo.
Lovely strawman. Given that there's 299 million people on one side, perhaps not only conservatives agree with your strawman?
What is at the extremes of what a conservative will permit? Should gays be permitted to teach children? What about communists, or liberals? Can the local S&M club parade down Main street (not showing any skin, but with whips and all)? Those are the questions that reveal how strong that belief in individuality and limited government go, not silly strawmans about NAMBLA.
how about being creative?... the money earned afterwards is just a bonus.
Not if you actually want to work as an artist as a full-time job. Then the money is a necessity. If you don't want to work as an artist as a full-time job, then the amount of work you can produce is limited.
Thought Police are the domain of the Liberal/Progressive (see also political correctness).
So all the people who are burning people at the stake for holding the wrong religion are liberal progressives? The most common form of thought police is religious, and they are usually all for the "status quo" and "traditional morality".
So when all those people were fired in Hollywood and elsewhere for being communists, it was by liberal progressives? Or were the people firing them, as commonly believed, conservatives?
A political ideology generally characterized by a belief in individualism and minimal government intervention in the economy and society; also a belief in the virtue of the status quo and general acceptance of traditional morality.
That's contradictory; if they're characterized by their belief in the status quo and acceptance of traditional morality, then they usually believe in government intervention to support the status quo and traditional morality. A group that was for limited government and individualism would unite individuals of all religious and moralities.
When they whine about speech what they are really whining for is a world with no reprocussions for their actions.
Yeah, that's what it always is. All those people who want to say something bad about the people in power and get punished, it's always their fault for speaking up.
These so-called radicals always want to throw stones at the government and big business and so on and apply the term "evil"
"So-called radicals"? Are you implying that the government and big business is always good? That they need no one to expose their crimes and wrongdoings?
but they never take any responsibility for what they do, only credit. Free will doesn't work that way. Your actions have consequences and speech requires action to convey it.
And what should the consequences be? Speaking out against a mob boss may get you killed; should we tell everyone whining about how their friend got his head blown off that that's simply the consequences of speaking?
Xenophobia is deeply ingrained in your genes, tribes of our species that lacked this vital feature were all slaughtered in prehistoric ages. We are just more or less trained to repress all actions resulting from it. Saying anything else, or calling someone names for it is a sheer hypocrisy.
If you act on your xenophobia, you're a bigot.
According to this argument, the US has every right to bomb the hell out of any country it wants, for xenophobic reasons alone, and no one should call us names or say anything about it. Of course, they have the right to act on their xenophobia, so I guess they can call us names.
By just taking it yourself, you have probably offended him, by being a foreigner, the reaction was multiplied.
For the reaction to be multiplied by the fact that he is a foreigner is sheer bigotry. The reaction as a whole was uncalled for; it was not a goal to cause offense, and in fact it was an honest mistake, and obviously so once apologies were offered.
Would you go in bar, ignore the bartender, pull a bottle from display a pour yourself a drink? I guess you would get thrown out of the bar by a bouncer even if you would be offering to pay for the drink.
Whereas I would expect that the bartender would be upset, but if you made clear that it was a mistake and you wouldn't do it again, you wouldn't have a problem.
There's a reason why the Soup Nazi made good TV and poor real life.
Your experience is definitely one of "cultural gap", not a "those people are unfriendly" one. Don't expect the shop keeper to have any respect for a customer who obviously had none for him !
Customs and cultures are complex and confusing. Only a fool would assume that a foreigner had no respect for him because he violated some minor rule of etiquitte. It's always better to start from the assumption that no insult was intended and work to fix the problem and educate the erring person. This is all the more appropriate when you can't reasonably expect the other person to full understand the implications of their actions, like a child or a foreigner.
I've never met anyone from France that was rude and refused to try to speak English -- quite the opposite.
But I've meet a couple people who found that very rude. A Swede I met on the net found that the attendent insisted on speaking English, despite the fact that his French was much better than the attendent's English.* My father went all around Europe roughly communicating in the local language with Berlitz guides. In France, the first person he tried it with rolled his eyes and said "Just speak English". I've heard from several people, including my father, that France is one of the few places in the world that they don't appreciate you trying to communicate with them in their language, and it offends those who try and make the effort.
My understanding is that bashing/hating people is a popular sport in the anglo-saxon culture
Let's start out showing our biases by bashing the Anglo-Saxon culture, shall we? We could ask the Algerians and Vietnamese how much love they felt from the French. Or how much love the Germans felt from the French at the end of WWI, when the Germans were slapped with six decades of ruinous, punative fines by the French.
Speaking of the Germans, and while we're at it, the Poles, Russians, Romanians and Arabs among others, why don't we ask the Jews? There are reasons the country with the most Jews in the world is the United States, and the US is only one of two countries in the world that is more than 1% Jewish.
We can talk about the deep abiding love the Hutus and Tutsis have for each other, and many other peoples, but I think I've made my point.
The result? a bunch of low res image in locked PDF (can't select and copy) of some two hundred years books
And it's far more important to culture to scan the latest Photoshop books? The reason you can't select and copy is because there's no OCR.
which have been stupidly spent for a totaly useless project!
The Gallica archive at BNF has been a wonderful source for Distributed Proofreaders and from them, Project Gutenberg, with BHF's blessing. Their scans have been far from useless.
there is a growing number of kids with genetic disorders who need extreme help and who are in the school system. These are by-products of tobacco and alcohol companies, kids of ex-drug users [...]
Wha? Alcohol and drugs don't cause genetic disorders; mutations and bad genes do. I don't recall tobacco causing any sort of birth defects at all; they certainly don't pound it into our heads like I would think they would if it did.
Most people don't want to learn "big words" such as "pyrotechnic", "facetious", "colloquial", or "penultimate" when simpler phrases such as "explosive devices", "bad joke", "local slang", and "second to ultimate" can be used just as well.
- h/15329-h.htm
Swift said much the same thing. A linguist, Elizabeth Elstob, working on Anglo-Saxon at the time, used the preface of her grammar to rip his article to pieces and demonstrate the power of monosyllables in English. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/5/3/2/15329/15329
There's no benefit to saying 'cya' versus 'see ya' because it comes out, verbally, the same.
so what? writing things without capital letters signifies the same utterance; why did you use capital letters? and that gratitous apostrophe?
The English language, especially when it's being written, is already muddled enough without inviting new deficincies just because a bunch of fourteen year old kids are too lazy to type or waste too much time IM'ing each other on cell phones.
Their ancestors butchered the language in the name of typewriters, their more distant ancestors butchered in the name of printing presses; what's new? The hacky changes, like having no seperate key for 1 and 0 on a typewriter, disappear, the more sane one's stay. Or should we really still be trying to reproduce all the ligatures of monistary writing in our printing?
Evolving a language is fine, but it should be a purpose-driven evolution to the benefit of communication by informed people,
It's never happened. Probably never will, and that's probably for the better.
not a reversal just because your offspring are too lazy to communicate properly or are having trivial dicsussions over inadequate mediums.
It's not a reversal; English has never done this before. A poster on Slashdot has little grounds to mock other's trivial discussions, and in fact simple inter-personal relations are critically important to humans.
Language shouldn't be negatively changing to fit the medium, the medium should be evolving to adequately handle the language.
Again, the medium is evolving and most of the more hacky changes will disappear. But it's not like the old style was handed down from God; the reason written material looks as it does in part is because ligatures in printing is hard.
The traditional pronunciation (based on derivation and history) is simply ignored.
When has the traditional pronounciation been based on derivation and history? It's based on how things are actually pronounced. Frequently, when it's supposedly based on derivation and history, it's wrong: the t in valet was pronounced in the era of French that word was borrowed from, and it was pronounced for hundreds of years in English, until someone came along with "derivation and history".
MP3 is an open standard.
Not really; it's a patented standard that's being enforced.