Linus Torvalds and many other GPL software authors are some examples of authors who do work without actually being paid for it. Please don't say that they've never created anything worthwhile. I myself would like to see a movie, book, song, and computer program that I write be seen the world over. I would love to get rich from it. But once 20 years has gone by it is time to get to work on something else.
I think the generalization "are generally just a bunch of people who've never created anything worthwhile in their lives, and just want to profit from the works of others" is way off but if we're going to use them how about "I think that people who want longer copyrights are selfish bastards (mostly of a corporate nature) who want to hijack history and collect revenues on it until after my grandchildren are dead."
As for "no longer entitled to a dime from its sales, despite the fact that it is still selling modestly well", you're free to release a special edition, and, now that it is in the public domain, you may release that special edition using any method of distribution you wish.
Ask Mrs. Von Trapp about how much she made from "The Sound of Music". She sold the rights for a flat fee and that was that. With a 20 year copyright she could have released her own "special edition" by now and actually earned some more from the project she initiated.
20 years is sufficient. 20 years from creation of work. One of the stated purposes of copyrights are to encourage creativity by assuring a reward for the author. To continue copyright protection beyond 20 years after its creation means in part that an author will have less reason to create new works.
In addition, long copyright protections rob today's youth of some of their heritage. Classic literature, classic movies, classic tv shows, all covered by copyright protections cannot be studied in school without paying the author. Our schools have plenty of expenses without tacking on more. (Books not under copyright protection are often available in very cheap versions and many are available for download from http://www.gutenberg.org)
After 20 years the work has made its money. Let it into the public domain where it can do some good.
Personally I just want to see an easy to find "Bare Minimum Install" option. I know the technology is there. You can set up an auto-install script that does a bare minimum install. Why can't they make a checkbox in the install process that does that?
When setting up a secure machine for a server it is best to start with nothing and add just enough to make it work.
Now suppose that, due to an amazing mental power, you have ability to tell him to shut up and he will do it. Wouldn't it be the decent thing to do, especially for the other people on the bus, to tell him to shut up?
Or do you sit there claiming you wish he was gone while impotently ignoring him and leaving him blissfully unaware he was even shouting obscenities?
Mail admins don't necessarily know of that links existence. Since they know they added you to the blacklist the least they could do is inform you of the existence of the blacklist, the location to visit for more information, and the fact that you have been added.
It's like spreading a rumour behind the mail admins back that he has an open relay or his fly is unzipped or her slip is showing without bothering to tell the admin. It doesn't do anything to alleviate the problem.
The objective, as I see it, is to get rid of open relays. Not to make sure they're all on a list somewhere.
And the only way to do that is to inform the mail admins so they can fix it.
Being added to a blacklist without being informed of it is wrong. I was added to a blacklist due to an oversight in my mail config. We were not generally an open relay but in specific instances we were.
Any time that happens an email should be sent to postmaster@(reverse dns of mail server IP address) to inform them of the action being taken and the specifics of their openness. Just "you are running an open relay" is insufficient.
Also the ability to quickly remove the address from the blacklist when the other mail admin repairs the problem is important.
I don't particularly like blacklists but something must be done to discourage open relays and for now they are the only option.
Best stop the problem at the source. First grade math class. If we stop the use of numbers we can prevent these circumvention devices from ever being created.
(And Sesame Street must be banned as well. All those numbers in a child's head can only lead to evil.)
Maybe they'll subpeona accounting records to see if Microsoft is telling the truth about their finances.
Maybe they'll ask for phone records. Maybe they'll ask for email records.
Seriously, when you're trying a case like this you have to get the information that proves or disproves your case. As a programmer myself I seriously doubt that any claims that Windows cannot be stripped down have any validity and I believe a decent programmer could show that and disprove Microsoft's claims.
The version 3 rule only applies to projects that are not free. Most developers don't like to give a project a 1.0 until it really is ready to go. Many free projects are perfectly usable with version numbers higher than 0.8 (OpenSSL for example is at version 0.9.6).
A non-free product cannot get away with using those kind of version numbers. No one will purchase a version with a number lower than 1.0.
I think campaign contributions should be limited to very small amounts and come from a lot of people. After all the politican is being elected to represent a lot of individuals and not a few corporations or rich people.
(I have nothing against the rich. I plan to be one soon.)
Personally I believe that the modern legal system is becoming more and more corporate and money controlled.
The problem is that when a politician is elected due to large campaign contributions, he can't help but think that the contributions put him there rather than the votes of the citizens. He is elected, supposedly, to represent the needs of the citizens, but instead he ends up feeling like he is elected to represent the needs of his financiers (even an individual with good moral fiber will have this difficulty).
A politician "should" be concerned first and foremost about how each decision will impact a private citizen. For example, how will DMCA impact the average consumer (loss of their fair use rights), how will extension of copyright laws affect the average individual (they will have access to no new public domain material in their lifetime), etc.
It is getting to the point that the individuals need to hire lobbyists to plead their case with the politicians. Except that the politician was hired in the first place to be our lobbyist.
Because with a Linux PDA I could modify the source to create the Ecstacy program where with the WinCE PDA I'd have to wait til version 2.0 for the thing to work and version 9.3 for the Ecstacy program. (Note that versions 3 through 6 were skipped because marketing data said people wanted higher version numbers.)
I'm confused. I've never met a gay geek and I'm not aware of any studies showing that homosexuality is any higher among geeks than the rest of the world.
I would think that most geeks would never think to connect an output to another output anyhow.
Her getting me roses or making me dinner doesn't necessarily result in my handing out more sex time. But if it is a good dinner she stands a good chance.
The big deal is that since you agreed to the EULA they can turn it back on if they want to. Or they could make a version that can't be turned off.
No one is complaining about the Automatic Update feature. That is a "good thing". The problem is an overreaching license that lets them stick code in there to monitor your computer usage and software installations. Whether or not they do it, they should not have that "legal right".
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. Both sides are evil
Linus Torvalds and many other GPL software authors are some examples of authors who do work without actually being paid for it. Please don't say that they've never created anything worthwhile. I myself would like to see a movie, book, song, and computer program that I write be seen the world over. I would love to get rich from it. But once 20 years has gone by it is time to get to work on something else.
I think the generalization "are generally just a bunch of people who've never created anything worthwhile in their lives, and just want to profit from the works of others" is way off but if we're going to use them how about "I think that people who want longer copyrights are selfish bastards (mostly of a corporate nature) who want to hijack history and collect revenues on it until after my grandchildren are dead."
As for "no longer entitled to a dime from its sales, despite the fact that it is still selling modestly well", you're free to release a special edition, and, now that it is in the public domain, you may release that special edition using any method of distribution you wish.
Ask Mrs. Von Trapp about how much she made from "The Sound of Music". She sold the rights for a flat fee and that was that. With a 20 year copyright she could have released her own "special edition" by now and actually earned some more from the project she initiated.
20 years is sufficient. 20 years from creation of work. One of the stated purposes of copyrights are to encourage creativity by assuring a reward for the author. To continue copyright protection beyond 20 years after its creation means in part that an author will have less reason to create new works.
In addition, long copyright protections rob today's youth of some of their heritage. Classic literature, classic movies, classic tv shows, all covered by copyright protections cannot be studied in school without paying the author. Our schools have plenty of expenses without tacking on more. (Books not under copyright protection are often available in very cheap versions and many are available for download from http://www.gutenberg.org)
After 20 years the work has made its money. Let it into the public domain where it can do some good.
I think they're trying to do full disclosure so they won't be excused of sneaking in OSDN links.
Personally I just want to see an easy to find "Bare Minimum Install" option. I know the technology is there. You can set up an auto-install script that does a bare minimum install. Why can't they make a checkbox in the install process that does that?
When setting up a secure machine for a server it is best to start with nothing and add just enough to make it work.
Now suppose that, due to an amazing mental power, you have ability to tell him to shut up and he will do it. Wouldn't it be the decent thing to do, especially for the other people on the bus, to tell him to shut up?
Or do you sit there claiming you wish he was gone while impotently ignoring him and leaving him blissfully unaware he was even shouting obscenities?
ordb.org does not give out a list that can be exploited. Each mail received is looked up via ordb to determine if it should be blocked.
Mail admins don't necessarily know of that links existence. Since they know they added you to the blacklist the least they could do is inform you of the existence of the blacklist, the location to visit for more information, and the fact that you have been added.
It's like spreading a rumour behind the mail admins back that he has an open relay or his fly is unzipped or her slip is showing without bothering to tell the admin. It doesn't do anything to alleviate the problem.
The objective, as I see it, is to get rid of open relays. Not to make sure they're all on a list somewhere.
And the only way to do that is to inform the mail admins so they can fix it.
Being added to a blacklist without being informed of it is wrong. I was added to a blacklist due to an oversight in my mail config. We were not generally an open relay but in specific instances we were.
Any time that happens an email should be sent to postmaster@(reverse dns of mail server IP address) to inform them of the action being taken and the specifics of their openness. Just "you are running an open relay" is insufficient.
Also the ability to quickly remove the address from the blacklist when the other mail admin repairs the problem is important.
I don't particularly like blacklists but something must be done to discourage open relays and for now they are the only option.
DeCSS is arithmetic. And it is banned.
Best stop the problem at the source. First grade math class. If we stop the use of numbers we can prevent these circumvention devices from ever being created.
(And Sesame Street must be banned as well. All those numbers in a child's head can only lead to evil.)
Maybe they'll subpeona accounting records to see if Microsoft is telling the truth about their finances.
Maybe they'll ask for phone records. Maybe they'll ask for email records.
Seriously, when you're trying a case like this you have to get the information that proves or disproves your case. As a programmer myself I seriously doubt that any claims that Windows cannot be stripped down have any validity and I believe a decent programmer could show that and disprove Microsoft's claims.
The version 3 rule only applies to projects that are not free. Most developers don't like to give a project a 1.0 until it really is ready to go. Many free projects are perfectly usable with version numbers higher than 0.8 (OpenSSL for example is at version 0.9.6).
A non-free product cannot get away with using those kind of version numbers. No one will purchase a version with a number lower than 1.0.
No. I said "Hey Blinkin"
VCRs had VCR Plus codes. Granted, those sucked. And the only way I know of obtaining the code for a show is to get a TV Guide.
Most American politicians aren't under this line of thinking as far as I can tell.
I think campaign contributions should be limited to very small amounts and come from a lot of people. After all the politican is being elected to represent a lot of individuals and not a few corporations or rich people.
(I have nothing against the rich. I plan to be one soon.)
You have comma and decimal points that need repairing.
Did Enron have a net income of 1.266 million? or 1266 million?
Personally I believe that the modern legal system is becoming more and more corporate and money controlled.
The problem is that when a politician is elected due to large campaign contributions, he can't help but think that the contributions put him there rather than the votes of the citizens. He is elected, supposedly, to represent the needs of the citizens, but instead he ends up feeling like he is elected to represent the needs of his financiers (even an individual with good moral fiber will have this difficulty).
A politician "should" be concerned first and foremost about how each decision will impact a private citizen. For example, how will DMCA impact the average consumer (loss of their fair use rights), how will extension of copyright laws affect the average individual (they will have access to no new public domain material in their lifetime), etc.
It is getting to the point that the individuals need to hire lobbyists to plead their case with the politicians. Except that the politician was hired in the first place to be our lobbyist.
Yea. Like they did with VCRs. Boy, wouldn't that be scary?
Personally I don't trust anyone with a UID > 6132
:)
That's a start but anonymous gifts aren't extremely useful unless you have someone "accidently" tell her it was you.
(If she reads slashdot and finds out the kind of things you're saying about her she probably wants you already)
Because with a Linux PDA I could modify the source to create the Ecstacy program where with the WinCE PDA I'd have to wait til version 2.0 for the thing to work and version 9.3 for the Ecstacy program. (Note that versions 3 through 6 were skipped because marketing data said people wanted higher version numbers.)
I'm confused. I've never met a gay geek and I'm not aware of any studies showing that homosexuality is any higher among geeks than the rest of the world.
I would think that most geeks would never think to connect an output to another output anyhow.
Her getting me roses or making me dinner doesn't necessarily result in my handing out more sex time. But if it is a good dinner she stands a good chance.
The big deal is that since you agreed to the EULA they can turn it back on if they want to. Or they could make a version that can't be turned off.
No one is complaining about the Automatic Update feature. That is a "good thing". The problem is an overreaching license that lets them stick code in there to monitor your computer usage and software installations. Whether or not they do it, they should not have that "legal right".