The thing is, the legal framework, the right of the copyright holder to issue a license, is the same for software with DRM as it is without.
As I understand it, the purpose of copyright is to secure for creators a limited time monopoly on the rights necessary for selling the creation, in return for them eventually enriching the cultural (and, in the case of software, technological) commons.
Some kinds of DRM prevent or obstruct use of the work in such a way that when the work enters the public domain, it doesn't enrich the commons in practice. It's like being given a car wreck that's in really bad shape: sure you can sell it as scrap metal, but it's worth so little that you're better off ignoring it.
For this reason, I think one can argue that DRM (with certain properties) goes against the spirit and purpose of copyright law, and the argument doesn't apply to GPL'ed software.
The problem with this argument is that its an assumed, implied agreement that the works will enrich the cultural commons - its not anything laid out in law as copyright law does not handle what happens to the work after copyright law ceases to apply.
Or in other words, its not the copyright holders responsibility to ensure that you have access to the works after copyright expires - and indeed, neither should it be.
The vast majority of works traded on TPB, and enjoyed by users of TPB, are commercial works that would have no commercial value in a world without copyright law. Its that simple.
Hobby works or works of pleasure would still exist, but the problem is is that hobby works are not the works that are popular.
Should users also blame him for relying on the Microsoft C Runtime Libraries when someone like you advocates their removal from Windows? How about.Net when someone bitches about Java being unfairly affected? What about the GUI widget sets when WxWidgets moans? When does this shit end?
Having just counted a random page, my iPhone eReader app shows 115 words, in three paragraphs, using the Helvetica Medium font. Perfectly readable and enough on the screen so that you aren't disturbed by the frequency of turning pages.
But then I'm certain you have never actually tried reading an ebook on an iPhone, just trolling.
I use the Ereader.com ebook reader for the iPhone, and I have to say that the standard font size and type is barely any different from a standard book when held at the same distance. I have absolutely no trouble at all reading books on my iPhone, and its always with me anyway.
Apple never dropped prices for the UK when the dollar tanked against the British Pound, but this rise is due to fluctuations in the exchange rate (which sees the British Pound more or less back to where it was against the dollar before the dollar tanked)? Hell, I'm a heavy Apple user and I'm not even that much of an apologist!
The new Mini is expensive, and there's little justification for it at that spec level.
Yes they are the same basic airframe, with avionics differences - which means that the GR9 Harrier(RAF) and the FA2 Harrier (RN) have the same undercarts. This has never been a problem, as the RAF routinely depoly Harriers to the Royal Navy carriers for operational detachments.
RAF Harriers are currently deployed to our carriers, as they have much lower hours on the airframes than the RN Sea Harriers. The carriers are still completely effective. Also I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to the new carriers, they are being designed for the VSTOL F-35 variant, with no current problems. The new carriers will be ready before the new aircraft.
Contracts without signatures are commonplace and legally accepted as enforceable today - I haven't physically signed a contract or agreement for a mobile phone, bank loan, credit card or overdraft in 5 or 6 years, its all been 'I accept' on a web page. Tell the banks that those aren't legally enforcable and you will get laughed at.
I would just like to thank you for including a non-GPL based license in the recommended list - I fully expected your list to be completely dominated by forced-sharing licenses, and its a breath of fresh air to have a popular public figure acknowledge that there is certainly a place for gift licenses in the software community.
How, exactly, are these governments going to get hold of the production process for these drugs they want to produce? Its not as simple as saying 'right, lets do it!'...
Most drugs are toxins, and most toxins have a perfectly safe level of exposure - thats why you don't chomp down handfuls of paracetamol (tylenol I think its called in the US) each time you have a headache...
Oh, and water is also a toxin in the right dosage.
Your second point is wrong (and I'm not convinced your third point is right either) - Juan Trippe of Pan Am told Boeing to build something as big as they could after the 707, and Pan Am would take it.
No, a half empty 747 can fill up on point-to-point cargo and still make a huge profit, especially when flying international routes.
Check out some of the Asia-Pacific routes between 10pm and 8am from airlines such as Singapore or Emirates - they fly aircraft such as the 767, 777 and A330 with only a few dozen people on them and make their money on cargo.
The reason that there has been no 747 competitor until now is that Airbus is still a relatively young company - yes, the A300 was designed and built in the 1970s, but that was a heavily government run project with the sole intention of building a non-US competitive aircraft in a market dominated by US manufacturers. It took until the A320 family in the late 1980s until Airbus as we know it today really came into being, and later successes with the A330 and A340 cemented Airbuses existence.
Until that happened, there was no manufacturer that *could* rival Boeing - it wasn't a matter of replacement cost, it was simply the fact that Boeing dominated the market even in the US through having the better product available. The lack of a 'family' product (an offering from smallest aircraft to largest aircraft) killed Lockheed, and they exited the civil market after the L-1011 failed, and while McDD did attempt to create a family through the DC-9 and DC-10 models, the gap between the two was too much.
The 747 actually has enjoyed the best CASM and RASM of any aircraft on the market over the past 40 years, and even today it has only been usurped by the A380 - size really does have a quality all of its own, especially in the aviation industry. A 747-400 still has excellent economics and many airframes will continue to fly well into the next two decades, but a new build A380 has even better economics and airlines are seeing that...
What you will see over the next 15 years is the 747 passenger variant being phased out with tier 1 airlines for either larger twins (777, 787 or A350), or the A380. The 747 may still hold the freighter mantel, but its pretty much lost the passenger mantel to the A380 in the VLA market on ecomonics alone.
The BA flight diverted because of a training issue where the crew were not 100% certain they had access to fuel in an outboard wing tank with one engine out on that wing, so they diverted rather than continue to their destination. On investigation, they actually had full access to this fuel and could have continued.
What is interesting is the teeth gnashing from the FAA when they said 'under FAA regulations, we have no power to penalise BA or the pilot for continuing with the flight...', and the CAA (the British counterpart) simply told BA, in their report on the incident, to update flight manuals to handle accessing fuel in outboard wing tanks in a single engine out situation:) The CAA had nothing at all to say about the flight continuing on on three engines.
It was said to have no commercial future, but in the twilight of its flying life Concorde has emerged as one of the biggest money-spinners for British Airways, earning the airline as much as £50m in the past six months.
In Concordeâ(TM)s final week alone BA is thought to have made about £6m in profit as customers vied for the cachet of being on board one of the last scheduled flights to travel through the sound barrier. ..
http://www.cronaca.com/archives/001605.html
In March 1984 the government ended its involvement with Concorde when British Airways assumed full responsibility for Concorde support costs. British Airways Board paid GBP16.5 million to acquire the government's stock of spare parts and was released from the profit share scheme under which the government collected 80 per cent of Concorde operating surpluses.
http://www.britishairways.com/concorde/faq.html
How much profit did Concorde make for British Airways?
On average Concorde made and operating profit of £30-50 Million a year for British Airways in the boom years where many passengers were travelling first class. British Airways reportedly received £1.75 Billion in revenue for Concorde services against an operating cost of around £1 Billion. Air France made a much smaller profit.
Wrong, Concorde was one of British Airways most profitable aircraft after the airline underwent privitisation in the mid 1980s - the Government was simply operating the aircraft badly before that.
Concorde being unprofitable is a major myth of the aircraft, and one that still dogs it to this day.
Rolls Royce told Airbus in the 1990s that they could only improve on the Olympus 593 engines supersonic efficiency by single digit percentages - that is not enough to warrant either a reengining of the then-current Concorde airframes, nor a clean sheet design.
Yes, the engines were that good. The problem is supersonic flight as a whole.
Slashdot Mirror
How are the developer libraries handled?
The thing is, the legal framework, the right of the copyright holder to issue a license, is the same for software with DRM as it is without.
As I understand it, the purpose of copyright is to secure for creators a limited time monopoly on the rights necessary for selling the creation, in return for them eventually enriching the cultural (and, in the case of software, technological) commons.
Some kinds of DRM prevent or obstruct use of the work in such a way that when the work enters the public domain, it doesn't enrich the commons in practice. It's like being given a car wreck that's in really bad shape: sure you can sell it as scrap metal, but it's worth so little that you're better off ignoring it.
For this reason, I think one can argue that DRM (with certain properties) goes against the spirit and purpose of copyright law, and the argument doesn't apply to GPL'ed software.
The problem with this argument is that its an assumed, implied agreement that the works will enrich the cultural commons - its not anything laid out in law as copyright law does not handle what happens to the work after copyright law ceases to apply.
Or in other words, its not the copyright holders responsibility to ensure that you have access to the works after copyright expires - and indeed, neither should it be.
The vast majority of works traded on TPB, and enjoyed by users of TPB, are commercial works that would have no commercial value in a world without copyright law. Its that simple.
Hobby works or works of pleasure would still exist, but the problem is is that hobby works are not the works that are popular.
Define the term 'OS' - what should it include, to the detriment of other competing products, and what should it not include?
Should users also blame him for relying on the Microsoft C Runtime Libraries when someone like you advocates their removal from Windows? How about .Net when someone bitches about Java being unfairly affected? What about the GUI widget sets when WxWidgets moans? When does this shit end?
Having just counted a random page, my iPhone eReader app shows 115 words, in three paragraphs, using the Helvetica Medium font. Perfectly readable and enough on the screen so that you aren't disturbed by the frequency of turning pages.
But then I'm certain you have never actually tried reading an ebook on an iPhone, just trolling.
I use the Ereader.com ebook reader for the iPhone, and I have to say that the standard font size and type is barely any different from a standard book when held at the same distance. I have absolutely no trouble at all reading books on my iPhone, and its always with me anyway.
Apple never dropped prices for the UK when the dollar tanked against the British Pound, but this rise is due to fluctuations in the exchange rate (which sees the British Pound more or less back to where it was against the dollar before the dollar tanked)? Hell, I'm a heavy Apple user and I'm not even that much of an apologist!
The new Mini is expensive, and there's little justification for it at that spec level.
Yes they are the same basic airframe, with avionics differences - which means that the GR9 Harrier(RAF) and the FA2 Harrier (RN) have the same undercarts. This has never been a problem, as the RAF routinely depoly Harriers to the Royal Navy carriers for operational detachments.
RAF Harriers are currently deployed to our carriers, as they have much lower hours on the airframes than the RN Sea Harriers. The carriers are still completely effective. Also I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to the new carriers, they are being designed for the VSTOL F-35 variant, with no current problems. The new carriers will be ready before the new aircraft.
Contracts without signatures are commonplace and legally accepted as enforceable today - I haven't physically signed a contract or agreement for a mobile phone, bank loan, credit card or overdraft in 5 or 6 years, its all been 'I accept' on a web page. Tell the banks that those aren't legally enforcable and you will get laughed at.
Bruce,
I would just like to thank you for including a non-GPL based license in the recommended list - I fully expected your list to be completely dominated by forced-sharing licenses, and its a breath of fresh air to have a popular public figure acknowledge that there is certainly a place for gift licenses in the software community.
How, exactly, are these governments going to get hold of the production process for these drugs they want to produce? Its not as simple as saying 'right, lets do it!'...
Most drugs are toxins, and most toxins have a perfectly safe level of exposure - thats why you don't chomp down handfuls of paracetamol (tylenol I think its called in the US) each time you have a headache...
Oh, and water is also a toxin in the right dosage.
Mains power button or cord. Nuff said.
Your second point is wrong (and I'm not convinced your third point is right either) - Juan Trippe of Pan Am told Boeing to build something as big as they could after the 707, and Pan Am would take it.
No, a half empty 747 can fill up on point-to-point cargo and still make a huge profit, especially when flying international routes.
Check out some of the Asia-Pacific routes between 10pm and 8am from airlines such as Singapore or Emirates - they fly aircraft such as the 767, 777 and A330 with only a few dozen people on them and make their money on cargo.
The reason that there has been no 747 competitor until now is that Airbus is still a relatively young company - yes, the A300 was designed and built in the 1970s, but that was a heavily government run project with the sole intention of building a non-US competitive aircraft in a market dominated by US manufacturers. It took until the A320 family in the late 1980s until Airbus as we know it today really came into being, and later successes with the A330 and A340 cemented Airbuses existence.
Until that happened, there was no manufacturer that *could* rival Boeing - it wasn't a matter of replacement cost, it was simply the fact that Boeing dominated the market even in the US through having the better product available. The lack of a 'family' product (an offering from smallest aircraft to largest aircraft) killed Lockheed, and they exited the civil market after the L-1011 failed, and while McDD did attempt to create a family through the DC-9 and DC-10 models, the gap between the two was too much.
The 747 actually has enjoyed the best CASM and RASM of any aircraft on the market over the past 40 years, and even today it has only been usurped by the A380 - size really does have a quality all of its own, especially in the aviation industry. A 747-400 still has excellent economics and many airframes will continue to fly well into the next two decades, but a new build A380 has even better economics and airlines are seeing that...
What you will see over the next 15 years is the 747 passenger variant being phased out with tier 1 airlines for either larger twins (777, 787 or A350), or the A380. The 747 may still hold the freighter mantel, but its pretty much lost the passenger mantel to the A380 in the VLA market on ecomonics alone.
The BA flight diverted because of a training issue where the crew were not 100% certain they had access to fuel in an outboard wing tank with one engine out on that wing, so they diverted rather than continue to their destination. On investigation, they actually had full access to this fuel and could have continued.
:) The CAA had nothing at all to say about the flight continuing on on three engines.
What is interesting is the teeth gnashing from the FAA when they said 'under FAA regulations, we have no power to penalise BA or the pilot for continuing with the flight...', and the CAA (the British counterpart) simply told BA, in their report on the incident, to update flight manuals to handle accessing fuel in outboard wing tanks in a single engine out situation
It was said to have no commercial future, but in the twilight of its flying life Concorde has emerged as one of the biggest money-spinners for British Airways, earning the airline as much as £50m in the past six months. In Concordeâ(TM)s final week alone BA is thought to have made about £6m in profit as customers vied for the cachet of being on board one of the last scheduled flights to travel through the sound barrier. . .
http://www.cronaca.com/archives/001605.html
In March 1984 the government ended its involvement with Concorde when British Airways assumed full responsibility for Concorde support costs. British Airways Board paid GBP16.5 million to acquire the government's stock of spare parts and was released from the profit share scheme under which the government collected 80 per cent of Concorde operating surpluses.
http://www.britishairways.com/concorde/faq.html
How much profit did Concorde make for British Airways? On average Concorde made and operating profit of £30-50 Million a year for British Airways in the boom years where many passengers were travelling first class. British Airways reportedly received £1.75 Billion in revenue for Concorde services against an operating cost of around £1 Billion. Air France made a much smaller profit.
http://www.concordesst.com/retire/faq_r.html
If you want actual financial figures, BA detailed Concorde as a seperate operating centre in its financial reports up until Concorde was retired.
The original poster said it was a money loser for the airlines, which it was not - totally different to development investment.
The 747 was not the first double deck plane, there were several multiple deck aircraft before it - the Boeing 377 being an excellent example.
And you really are doing many many engineers a great disservice...
Wrong, Concorde was one of British Airways most profitable aircraft after the airline underwent privitisation in the mid 1980s - the Government was simply operating the aircraft badly before that.
Concorde being unprofitable is a major myth of the aircraft, and one that still dogs it to this day.
Uhm, what? Lets have a look at the 'entirely new' aircraft to have been launched in the past 20 years:
1. Airbus A330. Fantastic success, sold over 1,000 airframes and continues to sell well.
2. Boeing 777. Fantastic success, sold over 1,000 airframes and continues to sell well.
3. Airbus A380. Debatable, yet to be seen.
4. Boeing 787. Fantastic success, yet to fly, sold over 900 airframes to date.
5. Airbus A350XWB. Fantastic success, still 4 years to EIS, sold over 450 airframes to date.
Clean sheet designs are still massively profitable.
Rolls Royce told Airbus in the 1990s that they could only improve on the Olympus 593 engines supersonic efficiency by single digit percentages - that is not enough to warrant either a reengining of the then-current Concorde airframes, nor a clean sheet design.
Yes, the engines were that good. The problem is supersonic flight as a whole.