Wow, there's so many things wrong with your post that I can't even think where to start. Seeing as you went backwards I'll guess I'll go backwards too. No, copyright does not cover the "idea" which your song expressed, it covers the exact embodiment of your song. When I convert your song to another embodiment I'm making a derivative work of your embodiment, which is why it is also covered by your copyright.
Yes, you are responsible for the damage an mp3 does to my equipment. It doesn't matter if it is impossible for you to make an mp3 that is guarenteed not to damage something. That's the risk you take by providing anything to anyone. It's a fucked up world and is the reason why you see so many disclaimers of liability around the place.
If you claim to be an authority on a subject and present something as factually correct when it is not you open yourself up to litigation if your claims cause damage. Again, fucked up world, sucks to be you, put a disclaimer on it.
A formular for making styrofoam cups is indeed an invention, but you can still put inventions in the public domain and you can still be sued if they cause damages.
You can put rat poison that you bought at the store in the public domain (ya know, the dirt under the swings at your local park) and you can be assured that you will be sued for damages if people know you did it.
What I think Second Life needs is project management systems. Imagine if you set up land and accept contributions from others easily.
Another thing it needs is the ability for owners of land to require players to give up their "special abilities" when they come onto the land (with a suitable warning). For example, if I buy enough land to put together a traditional RPG game, I'd want you to give up your telekinetic abilities before you entered the game.
Basically what I'm saying is that Second Life appears to be a development environment for a game. That's good and all, but it needs a little bit more for us to implement recognisable games like RPGs in it.
Please try a few flavours of Linux. At least try Ubuntu's Live CD (GNOME based) as well as Knoppix (KDE based). To really love Linux you've gotta find the distribution that is "right for you".
Compulsory student unions. Gotta fuckin' hate em. What's even funnier is that students doing higher research degrees are forced to pay a student services charge.. even though they use none of the services that students are provided. Part of that fee goes to a student union that doesn't even represent them.
In a world with millions of refugees, numerous war zones and huge areas devastated by natural disaster, aid agencies and militaries have long needed a way to quickly erect shelters on demand.
"agencies" maybe, but the military already has a way to erect shelters quickly: lots and lots of man power. Ever watched how quickly soldiers setup and take down a camp?
Well, I more see the GPL as a necessary use of the stick to combat all the excessive use of the stick around us. If the stick went away we wouldn't need the GPL. But yes, you would think that the CC would encourage the use of the least number of restrictions as possible and try to explain to people exactly what they are doing when they put non-commercial restrictions on their work.
wtf does that mean? You might as well call it "Do Stuff". To compromise, how about Manage Software Packages. It least the user has a chance in hell of figure out what that means.
Allow me to explain. Say you were to park your tomato peeler in the town square and put up a sign that said "here's my tomato peeler, you are free to use it". If Joe The Farmer trucks his entire crop into town, loads it into your tomato peeler, presses the big GO button and discovers that your tomato peeler is actually defective he has ruined his entire crop. He can now sue you for damages. The exact same thing can happen with software. You put a tax calculation program in the public domain, Joe The Investor uses it to calculate how much tax he needs to pay on his investments, the tax man fines Joe $1,000,000 because he paid the wrong amount of tax, Joe sues you for damages.
It doesn't matter if you put a sign that says "may be defective" on your tomato peeler or on your tax program. The difference between your tomato peeler and your tax program is that, if your tax program is not in the public domain, you can put a license on it which says no-one can sue you for damaged caused by your tax program. Joe must accept the license before he is legally entitled to copy the software onto his computer. That's the power copyright law gives you and is most of the reason why people use a BSD-style license over the public domain.
As the creator and copyright holder of the piece, I believe I have the right to say how it's used.
People always put it like this. Why don't they say it how they mean it: As the creator and copyright holder of the work, I belive I have the right to restrict how other people can use it. You're not just "saying how it's used", you're actively restricting people from doing things they should be free to do.
Just so we're 100% clear here, you're using the threat of litigation and, in some countries, criminal charges to force people to use the work only in the way which you deem is acceptable.
Doesn't sound like such a reasonable thing to declare you have the right to do anymore does it?
Blah, if you put an mp3 in the public domain and it trashes my mp3 player I can sue you for damages. If you put an encyclopedia entry in the public domain and I fail my history lesson as a result I can sue you for damages. Hell, if you put a formular for making styrofoam cups in the public domain and someone sues me for spilling coffee in their lap because the cup was too heat sensitive I can countersue you for damages. It's not just software.
Yeah I do. Cause if another musician who happens to consider the Creative Commons to be a good thing makes a derivative work of your song and then gets asked if his song can be used in an advertisement he's going to have to track you down and ask permission. Now you might say that is a good thing, but what happens if the pot has been stirred a hell of a lot more than just once? We already live in a permission based society when it comes to music. The Creative Commons is supposed to be about removing those restrictions so we get new works that we would never get in the restrictive-everything-is-owned world, because it's just way too much effort to go track everyone down and ask for permission. When you make an explicit restriction that says Non-Commercial Only you're cutting off a huge part of our culture from benefiting from this process.
I thought the whole point of the Creative Commons licenses was this thing we call "Free Culture". We try to convince people to put things under Creative Commons licenses so we don't have to hunt down people and ask permission to use their works before we make our own works that might include or be derived from them. By making the work free for non-commercial use only we're really saying that Free Culture can never be economically self supporting. That's a bad thing and people should be encouraged not to use non-commercial only licenses to make Free Culture because of it.
Maybe when you downloaded it you should have looked at who one of the two principle developers are. *I* have no trouble decompiling things with Boomerang because I can go ahead and fix what needs to be fixed to get it working on the specific binary that I'm trying to decompile. You need to take your application procedure by procedure and work through the problems to get a good output. Point and click decompilation is still a fair few years off at the moment.
Yeah, as I said, it's not freedom. It's not a hard thing to grasp here, if you have to ask for permission then it's not free for that use. It's good that you've released your work for non-commercial use, but commercial use is also important. Advocating that people release their work for non-commercial use when there's no real reason to is silly.
Note that part of the license which states that you can be sued if your work is defective. Lovely isn't it. That's why most people at least use something like the 2 clause BSD license. Cause it has this big fat disclaimer on it that says "you can't find me liable for defects."
The part I dislike the most about the Creative Commons set of licenses is the advocation of non-commercial restrictions, as if they were a good idea. This thoroughly reduces the distribution of the work. Suppose you make an icon set and place it under one of the Creative Commons licenses that has the non-commercial restriction. This means that Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake and all the other commercial Linux distributions can't put your icon set on their CD. It means that only people who contact you directly can use your icon set. That's hardly freedom.
On a totally different note. I was thinking about the part of the GPL that most people really don't get: the offer to supply source code at a later date. More than any other part of the GPL that section really confuses people. Maybe we should make a GPL-lite, where source code simply MUST accompany all binary distributions. That'd clear up the confusion for programs licensed under it at least.
You have no right under law. Us GPL hippies tend to think that you have an inalienable right to copy whatever the hell software you want and it's just the law that stops you from doing so. The only reason we enforce the GPL, seemly against our own reasoning, is because software is unique in that it comes in two different forms: source and binaries. We think not supplying the source is more wrong than placing restrictions on people, so we're willing to place restrictions on people to ensure that they hand over the source.
The whole point of that menu is to supply a place where all the "tasks" that a user might need to perform on his system can be found. It's a task based menu, and Syntapic Package Manager sticks out like a sore thumb because it isn't a task.
There's a world of difference between static and dynamic compilation. Besides which, if you have decompiled "source", you can actually do a "real" port to Cocoa.
Man I don't get it. Surely if you were porting winelib to Mac OS X you'd use the native Mac OS X widgets. That's the purpose of winelib, to use the native widgets of X11 on unix instead of the native widgets of win32 on Windows. Now look at the screenshot for Darwine, they've got what look like win32 widgets in Mac OS X, how the hell have they even done that?
I can do this already. We did a little experiment last year. Using the open source decompiler Boomerang you can turn a windows exe into C code. You can then simply recompile that source code on any platform using winelib including non-x86 platforms like PPC. Of course, you then have to test the app and ensure that it still works, which takes a fair bit of effort as winelib isn't exactly that portable and Boomerang isn't that mature just yet. But it is possible, and it's truely the highest performance way to "run win32 apps on PPC".
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, there's so many things wrong with your post that I can't even think where to start. Seeing as you went backwards I'll guess I'll go backwards too. No, copyright does not cover the "idea" which your song expressed, it covers the exact embodiment of your song. When I convert your song to another embodiment I'm making a derivative work of your embodiment, which is why it is also covered by your copyright.
Yes, you are responsible for the damage an mp3 does to my equipment. It doesn't matter if it is impossible for you to make an mp3 that is guarenteed not to damage something. That's the risk you take by providing anything to anyone. It's a fucked up world and is the reason why you see so many disclaimers of liability around the place.
If you claim to be an authority on a subject and present something as factually correct when it is not you open yourself up to litigation if your claims cause damage. Again, fucked up world, sucks to be you, put a disclaimer on it.
A formular for making styrofoam cups is indeed an invention, but you can still put inventions in the public domain and you can still be sued if they cause damages.
You can put rat poison that you bought at the store in the public domain (ya know, the dirt under the swings at your local park) and you can be assured that you will be sued for damages if people know you did it.
What I think Second Life needs is project management systems. Imagine if you set up land and accept contributions from others easily.
Another thing it needs is the ability for owners of land to require players to give up their "special abilities" when they come onto the land (with a suitable warning). For example, if I buy enough land to put together a traditional RPG game, I'd want you to give up your telekinetic abilities before you entered the game.
Basically what I'm saying is that Second Life appears to be a development environment for a game. That's good and all, but it needs a little bit more for us to implement recognisable games like RPGs in it.
Please try a few flavours of Linux. At least try Ubuntu's Live CD (GNOME based) as well as Knoppix (KDE based). To really love Linux you've gotta find the distribution that is "right for you".
Compulsory student unions. Gotta fuckin' hate em. What's even funnier is that students doing higher research degrees are forced to pay a student services charge.. even though they use none of the services that students are provided. Part of that fee goes to a student union that doesn't even represent them.
"agencies" maybe, but the military already has a way to erect shelters quickly: lots and lots of man power. Ever watched how quickly soldiers setup and take down a camp?
Well, I more see the GPL as a necessary use of the stick to combat all the excessive use of the stick around us. If the stick went away we wouldn't need the GPL. But yes, you would think that the CC would encourage the use of the least number of restrictions as possible and try to explain to people exactly what they are doing when they put non-commercial restrictions on their work.
wtf does that mean? You might as well call it "Do Stuff". To compromise, how about Manage Software Packages. It least the user has a chance in hell of figure out what that means.
It doesn't matter if you put a sign that says "may be defective" on your tomato peeler or on your tax program. The difference between your tomato peeler and your tax program is that, if your tax program is not in the public domain, you can put a license on it which says no-one can sue you for damaged caused by your tax program. Joe must accept the license before he is legally entitled to copy the software onto his computer. That's the power copyright law gives you and is most of the reason why people use a BSD-style license over the public domain.
People always put it like this. Why don't they say it how they mean it: As the creator and copyright holder of the work, I belive I have the right to restrict how other people can use it. You're not just "saying how it's used", you're actively restricting people from doing things they should be free to do.
Just so we're 100% clear here, you're using the threat of litigation and, in some countries, criminal charges to force people to use the work only in the way which you deem is acceptable.
Doesn't sound like such a reasonable thing to declare you have the right to do anymore does it?
Blah, if you put an mp3 in the public domain and it trashes my mp3 player I can sue you for damages. If you put an encyclopedia entry in the public domain and I fail my history lesson as a result I can sue you for damages. Hell, if you put a formular for making styrofoam cups in the public domain and someone sues me for spilling coffee in their lap because the cup was too heat sensitive I can countersue you for damages. It's not just software.
Yeah I do. Cause if another musician who happens to consider the Creative Commons to be a good thing makes a derivative work of your song and then gets asked if his song can be used in an advertisement he's going to have to track you down and ask permission. Now you might say that is a good thing, but what happens if the pot has been stirred a hell of a lot more than just once? We already live in a permission based society when it comes to music. The Creative Commons is supposed to be about removing those restrictions so we get new works that we would never get in the restrictive-everything-is-owned world, because it's just way too much effort to go track everyone down and ask for permission. When you make an explicit restriction that says Non-Commercial Only you're cutting off a huge part of our culture from benefiting from this process.
I thought the whole point of the Creative Commons licenses was this thing we call "Free Culture". We try to convince people to put things under Creative Commons licenses so we don't have to hunt down people and ask permission to use their works before we make our own works that might include or be derived from them. By making the work free for non-commercial use only we're really saying that Free Culture can never be economically self supporting. That's a bad thing and people should be encouraged not to use non-commercial only licenses to make Free Culture because of it.
Maybe when you downloaded it you should have looked at who one of the two principle developers are. *I* have no trouble decompiling things with Boomerang because I can go ahead and fix what needs to be fixed to get it working on the specific binary that I'm trying to decompile. You need to take your application procedure by procedure and work through the problems to get a good output. Point and click decompilation is still a fair few years off at the moment.
Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand me or are you just dumb?
Yeah, as I said, it's not freedom. It's not a hard thing to grasp here, if you have to ask for permission then it's not free for that use. It's good that you've released your work for non-commercial use, but commercial use is also important. Advocating that people release their work for non-commercial use when there's no real reason to is silly.
That may well be so, but you can still be sued for damages caused by a work if you place a defective work in the public domain.
Note that part of the license which states that you can be sued if your work is defective. Lovely isn't it. That's why most people at least use something like the 2 clause BSD license. Cause it has this big fat disclaimer on it that says "you can't find me liable for defects."
Yep, and America is full of gun totting Christians.
Oh, and Denmark is full of clog wearing porn stars who own chocolate factories.
And, France is full of stuck up arrogant smokers who.. (oh wait, that one's true)
Can you at least try not to generalise an entire nation?
On a totally different note. I was thinking about the part of the GPL that most people really don't get: the offer to supply source code at a later date. More than any other part of the GPL that section really confuses people. Maybe we should make a GPL-lite, where source code simply MUST accompany all binary distributions. That'd clear up the confusion for programs licensed under it at least.
You have no right under law. Us GPL hippies tend to think that you have an inalienable right to copy whatever the hell software you want and it's just the law that stops you from doing so. The only reason we enforce the GPL, seemly against our own reasoning, is because software is unique in that it comes in two different forms: source and binaries. We think not supplying the source is more wrong than placing restrictions on people, so we're willing to place restrictions on people to ensure that they hand over the source.
The whole point of that menu is to supply a place where all the "tasks" that a user might need to perform on his system can be found. It's a task based menu, and Syntapic Package Manager sticks out like a sore thumb because it isn't a task.
There's a world of difference between static and dynamic compilation. Besides which, if you have decompiled "source", you can actually do a "real" port to Cocoa.
Yeah, that's painful. Oh well.
Man I don't get it. Surely if you were porting winelib to Mac OS X you'd use the native Mac OS X widgets. That's the purpose of winelib, to use the native widgets of X11 on unix instead of the native widgets of win32 on Windows. Now look at the screenshot for Darwine, they've got what look like win32 widgets in Mac OS X, how the hell have they even done that?
I can do this already. We did a little experiment last year. Using the open source decompiler Boomerang you can turn a windows exe into C code. You can then simply recompile that source code on any platform using winelib including non-x86 platforms like PPC. Of course, you then have to test the app and ensure that it still works, which takes a fair bit of effort as winelib isn't exactly that portable and Boomerang isn't that mature just yet. But it is possible, and it's truely the highest performance way to "run win32 apps on PPC".