No it isn't. It's incredibly easy to lose your job. You hardly have to do anything. In fact that's the best way. Hardly do anything and I assure you that you will lose your job.
That's because he entered into an agreement to use the software and so had to abide be those terms. (the "eula")
GNU GPL software does not require you to agree to its terms unless you distribute it because its a copyright license and copyright only covers copying and distribution.
The market for this card is geeks, hackers and open source die hards. Most will already have the latest kickass graphics card in a machine
I am a geek and an open source die hard.
I absolutely do not have the lasest kickass card precicely because there is no open source support for those newer cards. Currently I have an ATI9200se which is the best card I could find that has fully functional open source xorg drivers that do 2d and 3d accelleration. It cost me about 25UKP. Hardly the latest kick ass card.
I am willing to pay around 100UKP for a better card if is fully supported with open source drivers.
I am not really interested in a reprogrammable fpga but I would support a company that provided it because I can see that others would be interested.
For me, being fully supportive of open source _is_ the unique selling point.
This tool can't possibly ensure that some binary wasn't made by someone who looked at the open source version, and just reimplemented the same ideas.
Good. So long as all they are doing is gathering ideas there is nothing wrong with that. Its like me reading harry potter and then writing a book about wizards. Of course I should be allowed to.
Next you'll be telling us that someone could just look at an application working and then write their own implementation incorporating some of the same ideas. Should they be stopped from that as well? Oh wait, they can be. That's what software patents are often used for.
If you think it's overkill then I suggest you haven't understood. It's still just some cacheing code, but its put in a decorator class so it is useful to all callers. It also has the benefit of being easy to prevent dirty reads because it knows about writes and updates.
Pretty damn cool idea if you ask me. (and one which I will be playing with myself when I get back from work!)
thanks to the grandparent poster for mentioning this.
Allowing modules compiled for one kernel to run with another would require fixing the ABI. This is bad because it means the developers can't make changes they need as quickly as they would like. In the end that adversely effects users because they have to wait too long for new features.
The way things are now does not adversely effect users, but does slightly annoy developers who compile their own kernels.
They have it the right way around already. Keep things as they are. "better kernel in general" is more important than "easier to compile kernel and modules"
I have hundreds of UKP per year to spend on music (and that doesn't include concerts)
I _WANT_ to buy more music and a WANT TO PAY YOU for it.
But I will not part with a SINGLE PENNY for DRM'd crap.
Seriously, you are LOSING BUSINESS and LOSING PUBLIC SUPPORT by continuing with this.
I agree that there is a lot of online unauthorised redistribution of your works, but evidently DRM is doing nothing to stop it.
You need to find another approach. Change your business model, lower your prices... I don't know, I'm not a business person but I am a consumer and I do know that you are turning us all off your industry and before long if you continue treating us like criminals more of us will end up downloading everything for free instead.
The fact that the economy needs to run and that people should be compensated for their work
What makes you think the free software movement disagrees? I agree too. I also think as you do that there is nothing wrong with selling software. (In fact I am a professional software developer)
I also agree with what stallman said, and believe that using a non-free SCM for linux was a bad idea. If you find those things hard to reconcile then I suggest that you haven't really understood what the free software movement is about.
To hear your suggestion that RMS is "self serving" brings a smile to my face. I don't think you realise how funny that is to those who understand his philosophy.
Finally, since you brought up the subject of the economy, perhaps have a look at what economists are saying about free software[1] and the impact it has on the economy. You may be surprised. Google is your friend.
[1] Actually, the recent economists comments I have read are about open source software, not free software but from an economic standpoint the differences are minimal. (in contract to a philosophical standpoint of course)
to solve the same problem you'll have nine other better ways
I often do have lots of other ways to solve problems. The trouble is we often have to solve problems in the same way. This is fot two reasons:
1) "user level" problems. Users are used to things working on a particular way. We have to use the same way or they won't migrate to our software. (inertia effect)
2) "technical solutions" This one is best described by example: (for an already existing problem)
I have an idea. Let's develop some software to compress video in such a way as it can easily be streamed across the internet optimising for reasonable quality at low bitrates.
I have come up with use an algorythm called "A" to do this and patented it. The problem we face now is that in order to view sites providing the content in this format we have to use algorythm A. But we can't because it's patented. Even though we have come up with "B" ourselves which may even be better, we still can't get a foothold in the market because too many people are using "A" and we can't use it. Even if we have a better implementation of A than anyone else we still don't get a chance unless the patent holder agrees. Our innovation is stifled.
Often, thinking of "A" is harder than implementing "A" so the real competition lies in the implementation. It's the implementors who n eed protection for real innovation to flourish.
the only way to level the playing field is with tarrifs and to stop technology sharing
That's not the way to level the playing field. That's the way to maintain the status quo and protect only American interests.
The fact is that in the compusing world the real competition is not in thinking up ideas. Ideas are ten a penny. The real competition is on _implementing_ them well. It's the implementers who need protecting from the patent wielding idea merchants who couldn't make great in a million years.
If India becomes better at implementing current ideas on software than America (or anywhere else for that matter) then they _should_ take away business from the other places. That's how free markets work and its all a good thing in the long term.[1]
Once the world realises that by and large, software business works better when it is about services and not products or ideas then things will all even out fairly in time. The likes of Microsoft will either reinvent themselves or die and SMEs will rule the software world. Innovation will flourish, occuring largley collaberatively much as happens now to some extent with FLOSS and other online thinking shops.
[1] factors such as foriegn working condition, minimum wages and various ethical concerns should be considered but are outside the scope of what I was saying.
What appears in slashdot stories is and should be orthogonal from what appears in the comments.
Not everyone even reads the comments. If there is more news that has not appeared in an article, then there should be an article regardless of whether it has already been discussed in some comments.
* you don't OWN all rights on the content on that disc, only those rights copyright holder grants to you.
I don't own all the rights on the content, true.
I own more that just what they grant me though. They can grant me any rights that copyright takes away by default, but any other rights I have already.
Think of it as a venn diagram with sets A, B, C A is the set of all rights. B is the set of rights copyright law removes. (and is a not empty subset of A) C is the set of rights granted by a copyright owner. (and is a subset of B)
The rights I have on a work is the union of A and C.
The copyright owner can try to add any restriction they want. (eg, you do not have the right to fly a helocopter if you buy this CD) but they are unenforcable. They cannot take away rights using copyright, only give back rights that copyright law took away in the first place.
The only exception to that is if you have entered into a contract with them.
If I were a licensee, what does that license permit me to do?
I do not need a license to use something that I own even if it includes copyrighted work. Copyright law prevents me from duplicating or distributing a work without a license but has nothing to do with use.
The copyright holders love it because it gives them control over the owners of the media.
I think you are talking about "intellectual property owners." This is why the phrase "intellectual property" is a misleading one because it tricks folks into thinking that intangible things are the same as tangible things when they are not.
If I buy a cd or a dvd, I am its owner, nobody else. If I download from an online music store, I am paying for a service. In either case, nobody else "owns" anything I have paid for.
Slashdot Mirror
Losing your job is hard
No it isn't. It's incredibly easy to lose your job. You hardly have to do anything. In fact that's the best way. Hardly do anything and I assure you that you will lose your job.
That's because he entered into an agreement to use the software and so had to abide be those terms. (the "eula")
GNU GPL software does not require you to agree to its terms unless you distribute it because its a copyright license and copyright only covers copying and distribution.
The market for this card is geeks, hackers and open source die hards.
Most will already have the latest kickass graphics card in a machine
I am a geek and an open source die hard.
I absolutely do not have the lasest kickass card precicely because there is no open source support for those newer cards. Currently I have an ATI9200se which is the best card I could find that has fully functional open source xorg drivers that do 2d and 3d accelleration. It cost me about 25UKP. Hardly the latest kick ass card.
I am willing to pay around 100UKP for a better card if is fully supported with open source drivers.
I am not really interested in a reprogrammable fpga but I would support a company that provided it because I can see that others would be interested.
For me, being fully supportive of open source _is_ the unique selling point.
This tool can't possibly ensure that some binary wasn't made by someone who looked at the open source version, and just reimplemented the same ideas.
Good. So long as all they are doing is gathering ideas there is nothing wrong with that. Its like me reading harry potter and then writing a book about wizards. Of course I should be allowed to.
Next you'll be telling us that someone could just look at an application working and then write their own implementation incorporating some of the same ideas. Should they be stopped from that as well? Oh wait, they can be. That's what software patents are often used for.
why not?
If you think it's overkill then I suggest you haven't understood. It's still just some cacheing code, but its put in a decorator class so it is useful to all callers. It also has the benefit of being easy to prevent dirty reads because it knows about writes and updates.
Pretty damn cool idea if you ask me. (and one which I will be playing with myself when I get back from work!)
thanks to the grandparent poster for mentioning this.
Sorry, I was ambiguous.
By fix, I mean:
"To put into a stable or unalterable form"
and NOT:
"To restore to proper condition or working order; repair"
Hope that clears it up.
Allowing modules compiled for one kernel to run with another would require fixing the ABI. This is bad because it means the developers can't make changes they need as quickly as they would like. In the end that adversely effects users because they have to wait too long for new features.
The way things are now does not adversely effect users, but does slightly annoy developers who compile their own kernels.
They have it the right way around already. Keep things as they are. "better kernel in general" is more important than "easier to compile kernel and modules"
I have hundreds of UKP per year to spend on music (and that doesn't include concerts)
I _WANT_ to buy more music and a WANT TO PAY YOU for it.
But I will not part with a SINGLE PENNY for DRM'd crap.
Seriously, you are LOSING BUSINESS and LOSING PUBLIC SUPPORT by continuing with this.
I agree that there is a lot of online unauthorised redistribution of your works, but evidently DRM is doing nothing to stop it.
You need to find another approach. Change your business model, lower your prices... I don't know, I'm not a business person but I am a consumer and I do know that you are turning us all off your industry and before long if you continue treating us like criminals more of us will end up downloading everything for free instead.
The fact that the economy needs to run and that people should be compensated for their work
What makes you think the free software movement disagrees? I agree too. I also think as you do that there is nothing wrong with selling software. (In fact I am a professional software developer)
I also agree with what stallman said, and believe that using a non-free SCM for linux was a bad idea. If you find those things hard to reconcile then I suggest that you haven't really understood what the free software movement is about.
To hear your suggestion that RMS is "self serving" brings a smile to my face. I don't think you realise how funny that is to those who understand his philosophy.
Finally, since you brought up the subject of the economy, perhaps have a look at what economists are saying about free software[1] and the impact it has on the economy. You may be surprised. Google is your friend.
[1] Actually, the recent economists comments I have read are about open source software, not free software but from an economic standpoint the differences are minimal. (in contract to a philosophical standpoint of course)
I'm sure most of the companies still behind OS/2 are screaming at IBM not to release so much as a comment from the code.
Why?
it's hard to believe that it didn't even exist 10 years ago.
Is it?
Even when you think that 10 years ago Microsoft Internet Explorer didn't exist and 15 years ago the world wide web had only just been invented?
Would it have helped if I added a smiley to indicate my humour?
(PS: are you American?)
Have a little sympathy please.
Typical windows users may have difficulty navigating around all the complicated menus. It makes sense to make it easier for them by default.
Real people on the other hand can probably work things like that out one their own.
to solve the same problem you'll have nine other better ways
I often do have lots of other ways to solve problems. The trouble is we often have to solve problems in the same way. This is fot two reasons:
1) "user level" problems. Users are used to things working on a particular way. We have to use the same way or they won't migrate to our software. (inertia effect)
2) "technical solutions" This one is best described by example: (for an already existing problem)
I have an idea. Let's develop some software to compress video in such a way as it can easily be streamed across the internet optimising for reasonable quality at low bitrates.
I have come up with use an algorythm called "A" to do this and patented it. The problem we face now is that in order to view sites providing the content in this format we have to use algorythm A. But we can't because it's patented. Even though we have come up with "B" ourselves which may even be better, we still can't get a foothold in the market because too many people are using "A" and we can't use it. Even if we have a better implementation of A than anyone else we still don't get a chance unless the patent holder agrees. Our innovation is stifled.
Often, thinking of "A" is harder than implementing "A" so the real competition lies in the implementation. It's the implementors who n eed protection for real innovation to flourish.
the only way to level the playing field is with tarrifs and to stop technology sharing
That's not the way to level the playing field.
That's the way to maintain the status quo and protect only American interests.
The fact is that in the compusing world the real competition is not in thinking up ideas. Ideas are ten a penny. The real competition is on _implementing_ them well. It's the implementers who need protecting from the patent wielding idea merchants who couldn't make great in a million years.
If India becomes better at implementing current ideas on software than America (or anywhere else for that matter) then they _should_ take away business from the other places. That's how free markets work and its all a good thing in the long term.[1]
Once the world realises that by and large, software business works better when it is about services and not products or ideas then things will all even out fairly in time. The likes of Microsoft will either reinvent themselves or die and SMEs will rule the software world. Innovation will flourish, occuring largley collaberatively much as happens now to some extent with FLOSS and other online thinking shops.
[1] factors such as foriegn working condition, minimum wages and various ethical concerns should be considered but are outside the scope of what I was saying.
Well. Why don't you try to level the playing field again by campaining for the abolision of software patents in America?
They are not developing it. They are patenting the idea so they can enslave anyone who does develop it.
No, he just tricked you into thinking he would make a good timelord.
I really don't see the need to replace an X system with Y system when the X system does the job for you more than adequately.
True. But that's what folks said to me in 1996 when I said I didn't need to replace my Amiga. I was right then, but soon became wrong.
What appears in slashdot stories is and should be orthogonal from what appears in the comments.
Not everyone even reads the comments. If there is more news that has not appeared in an article, then there should be an article regardless of whether it has already been discussed in some comments.
Subversion is not the obvious choice because its nothing like bitkeeper.
Have you ever used bitkeeper? It is highly distributed in the way it works.
Subversion on the other hand is very much like cvs (except it doesn't suck)
I doubt it. Americans rarely apologize. :P
you actually never own their son
True, but I do own my copy of that song.
* you don't OWN all rights on the content on that disc, only those rights copyright holder grants to you.
I don't own all the rights on the content, true.
I own more that just what they grant me though. They can grant me any rights that copyright takes away by default, but any other rights I have already.
Think of it as a venn diagram with sets A, B, C
A is the set of all rights.
B is the set of rights copyright law removes. (and is a not empty subset of A)
C is the set of rights granted by a copyright owner. (and is a subset of B)
The rights I have on a work is the union of A and C.
The copyright owner can try to add any restriction they want. (eg, you do not have the right to fly a helocopter if you buy this CD) but they are unenforcable. They cannot take away rights using copyright, only give back rights that copyright law took away in the first place.
The only exception to that is if you have entered into a contract with them.
No, I am not a licensee.
If I were a licensee, what does that license permit me to do?
I do not need a license to use something that I own even if it includes copyrighted work. Copyright law prevents me from duplicating or distributing a work without a license but has nothing to do with use.
But the owners love it!
The copyright holders love it, not the owners.
The copyright holders love it because it gives them control over the owners of the media.
I think you are talking about "intellectual property owners." This is why the phrase "intellectual property" is a misleading one because it tricks folks into thinking that intangible things are the same as tangible things when they are not.
If I buy a cd or a dvd, I am its owner, nobody else. If I download from an online music store, I am paying for a service. In either case, nobody else "owns" anything I have paid for.