The GPL prevents you from attaching further restrictions to software you distribute. Doesn't the app-store do this in the EULAs it makes customers sign up to? Also, I'm not too familiar with how the iPhone SDK works, but if if involves dynamically linking your application to close-source libraries provided by Apple, lots of people would consider it to be violating the spirit (if not the letter) of the GPL.
AIUI, it's fine if these libraries are part of the OS, so this would be fine (and it has to be fine, even in spirit, otherwise you couldn't write software for most platforms unless you found open source equivalents for everything).
But you make a good point on the further restrictions issue. Can anyone provide more information on this - might an app-store downloaded app require additional restrictions? I do hope that they make it clear that the downloaded app is only licenced under the GPL.
But the point is that if I did have a free (as in beer) or at least cheaper means to do that (perhaps I already own it, perhaps I can pick it up cheap), I am free (as in speech) to do that. Moreover, I am free (as in speech) to host my GPL product in competition with anyone else who might be trying to make money from it, on a level playing field, even if I needed to spend some money to do so.
It's not the $99 that's a problem in itself. It's that it must be paid, it has to be to Apple, and on top of that, they decide which apps are allowed on their platform, theoretically meaning that they might give a monopoly to someone who wasn't the original author of the GPL software.
You are missing his point. Let me rephrase it for you:
"With the iPhone you are not free to redistribute the program for free."
It is the first "free" that is being discussed, and that is certainly free as in speech. The second "free" is irrelevant - he could have said "for a lower price" or "for the same price" or "in exchange for some vegetables".
Perhaps you can point at the specific clause that declares paying $99/yr or whatever to get your binaries signed for distribution is a violation?
No one is claiming it is a violation. But sometimes new issues arise that the GPL did not forsee (e.g., the issue with patents, which resulted in GPL v3). It is perfectly possible to update the GPL, so it isn't simply a case of "Oh it's not against the licence so who cares". I'm not sure what the answer is, but I can see the concern if "free" software is locked up in requirements for paying $99/year to Apple for development, and Apple being able to grant a monopoly to only one developer.
As someone who's written GPL software, I'm happy for people to make money from my work - but that's always been on the understanding that I could always compete with them on a level playing field (and hence, the only realistic way for them to make money is to genuinely add value, otherwise I could simply offer the same product for free in competition with them). But that goes out the window if Apple grant a monopoly to them, and I am locked out of distributing my software on the Iphone, simply because they got to the app store first.
How will Apple deal with these issues if someone else tries to upload the same or similar product? Will they allow both? Will they give priority to the one who wrote the original GPL application, and not the author of the derivative work? Or will it be a case of first-come-first-serve to the app store?
Yes exactly. Whilst charging for software is explicitly allowed under the GPL, Apple's way of handling the app store does present a new problem. The question is, if the original author (or anyone else) decided to submit the Iphone app to the app store, for a lower price (or perhaps for free), would Apple accept it? If so, fair enough. But if not (perhaps on the grounds of duplication), then they're granting a monopoly to one author (since people can't download apps from elsewhere), and I'd argue that that isn't in the spirit of the GPL.
Effectively Apple's restrictions on what code can be run on the Iphone have placed additional restrictions on his software. Perhaps a new version of the GPL is needed to deal with this, similar to what happened with patents, IIRC?
Which is what I said with more explanation. A kernel is not an OS, even if they share some libraries. By that logic, OS X is Darwin, and Iphone OS is NEXT.
Iphone OS is simply not the same OS as OS X that runs on desktops. Crying about how much in common is irrelevant - as long as there's some that's different, you're not running the same thing. (Not sure why this is such an issue - I imagine people want to go "Wow, Iphones can run the same OS as desktops", though this is misleading, they're not doing anything different to other phones.)
Even if you might argue that survival is a necessary quality for useful AI, the point is that it's not a sufficiency. Nor should it be a better metric.
OS X only runs on Macs, and as good as Linux is, it doesn't (sadly) seem to be gaining market share.
I can just see them quaking.
There are obvious reasons for them wanting to expand there share on netbooks and other mobile devices, but I don't think there worried about competition on the desktop.
He's still wrong - I'm pretty sure mp3 phones were around before 5 years ago, and it was also around 2004 that companies were hyping viewing video on then new 3G phones.
No, Iphone OS is not OS X. Even if they did share some code. You might as well claim that Windows already runs on ARM and loads more (due to Windows CE).
Well they've been selling Linux netbooks. Remember that lots of people are buying these to access the Internet, and not to run general applications. An ARM Windows netbook won't have the disadvantages of unfamiliarity, or people who insist on Windows because that's all they know. It'll also be much easier to port apps to it from x86 Windows, than to Linux.
Anyhow, Microsoft themselves could supply web browser, email client, IM program, complete office suite, media player, which covers most people's uses of netbooks.
The benefit to Windows XP being around for so long is that Microsoft had a long time to make it stable.
Before that even - Windows 2000 is rock solid. The important point is that they're all derived from the much more stable NT line, as opposed to the shoddy Windows 9x that everyone remembers, and still seems to give Windows a bad name, even though it was a completely different OS (it would be like criticising OS X for the flaws in the joke that was classic MacOS).
What market are they going after with this, netbook's with ARM instead of Atom cpus?
Presumably. As TFS points out, the line between PCs and mobiles is becoming less distinct. I must admit, personally I'd have a preference for x86, because of compatability with PCs (which I will always prefer as a platform over locked down phones), but it's not like ARM are some niche player here.
Indeed, and AFAICT that's all Wolfram are claiming here - they own the copyright to the presentation of those facts, not the facts themselves (which would obviously be silly).
No one's claiming copyright on facts. The issue is the expression of that information. Are you saying that Wikipedia or Britannica aren't covered by copyright? Obviously they are. If the Wolfram Alpha results were produced by a human, they would too. The question is, does that change if the final presentation step is automated by a program?
I'm not saying Alpha should be copyrighted, but those are non-sequitors - just because a court ruled that one instance of software results was a creative work, doesn't mean that all results of software are creative. Just as the fact that humans can copyright most photographs they create, doesn't mean that a photograph of public domain artwork can be copyrighted. It can't, because there is no creative element.
The physical examples of monitors, cameras and phones would certainly fail the requirement for any creative element.
Also the ruling might be made on other grounds - e.g., that it runs on their servers. After all, it's standard practice that if you use your work PC to do something, the copyright automatically belongs to the company (even if you do it in your own time). This would obviously have ramifications for online services, but wouldn't affect any other kind of software, let alone physical products that you own.
Yes, I remember seeing low cost versions that were "not for commercial use" and so on. I often wondered how that was enforceable - has it ever been tested in court?
I assumed it was because there would be some code inserted by the compiler (I dunno, start up stuff, or required libraries?), and the point is that that code was written by a person, and hence the company owned copyright on it. But that's just a guess - anyone know any better?
Well by that logic, nothing is "creative", because we're just machines that are producing works based on computation made by our brains (unless you want to claim that there's something mystical about humans).
So there are two possibilities: either we say that creativity is something that can never apply to software (even if someone writes a human level AI that is indistinguishable from a creative human), or alternatively we judge "creativity" in the same way we judge humans.
US courts have already ruled that hard work is not sufficient for copyright, there needs to be some originality, so I'm not sure that a process such as compiling would ever be considered "creative", even if it was done by hand. Should what Alpha does be considered creative too? I don't know - probably not. However, the point is that even if a court ruled that it should be copyrightable, this does not imply that all other software results would be copyrightable. Just as a court ruling that a painting made by a human is copyrightable, doesn't mean that taking a photo of a public domain artwork is copyrightable.
One question that I have trouble answering: supposing a company took requests for research, then had its employees compile its results, perhaps using computers along the way, and then present them back to the person who requested it. Clearly in that case, copyright belongs by default to the company. But what if they then gradually switched to using a fully computerised method, but didn't advertise this fact? Should this suddenly mean they lose copyright? Would a court have to investigate the internal processes in order to judge whether it should be copyrightable?
There is another point by which a distinction could be made: the copyright belongs to the person controlling the software. So in my example above, the employees are entering the data to their software, and so the company owns the copyright. But a person using a compiler, or perhaps an automatic music generator, is the one inputting the data, and so should own the copyright. In both cases, the software is irrelevant. Alpha gets tricky, because it's online - they could make the argument that the software is running on servers owned by them. OTOH, there's the argument that the user is still using the software, and should own the copyright. If online software was treated differently, this would be a cause for concern, though online software already has dangers regarding licencing, in that software companies can charge for it as a service, unlike offline client-side software.
I suspect that good bands will still become popular, and be as part of culture, just not as much as the OTT way it happens now.
Consider the example of subcultures, as you give yourself with metal - surely you've experienced that you can talk about other bands or quote lyrics, and people in that subculture will know what you mean, even if the bands have never received any mainstream advertising. Perhaps it will mean that musical culture will become focused on particular subcultures rather than shared by all, but I don't think that's a bad thing.
People said the same thing about TV going from 4 channels to 100s - "but I won't be able to discuss with my friends what was on the TV last night". But in fact, you still can, because even though there's 100s of channels, good TV still spreads through word of mouth, and people start watching things that they hear their friends talking about. Same with music. Does it matter if there isn't a common cultural interest in music or TV between you and a complete random stranger?
But there is friction - that's the whole problem in the first place, that friction from the atmosphere is causing the orbit to degrade. So the issue is whether the acceleration from an engine is sufficient to overcome that. I have no idea whether that is the case or not.
How many permanent American non-native towns were there in 1492?
I don't think anyone is saying we should give up space exploration, the point is that building a permanent space station in orbit is not yet feasible or sensible. Maybe in a few hundred years that will be feasible - just as it took hundreds of years for America to develop into the USA.
Slashdot Mirror
The GPL prevents you from attaching further restrictions to software you distribute. Doesn't the app-store do this in the EULAs it makes customers sign up to? Also, I'm not too familiar with how the iPhone SDK works, but if if involves dynamically linking your application to close-source libraries provided by Apple, lots of people would consider it to be violating the spirit (if not the letter) of the GPL.
AIUI, it's fine if these libraries are part of the OS, so this would be fine (and it has to be fine, even in spirit, otherwise you couldn't write software for most platforms unless you found open source equivalents for everything).
But you make a good point on the further restrictions issue. Can anyone provide more information on this - might an app-store downloaded app require additional restrictions? I do hope that they make it clear that the downloaded app is only licenced under the GPL.
By that logic, GPL-derived software that's locked under a software patent is still free, as you simply have to pay them the fee to use the patent.
The FSF disagreed, however.
But the point is that if I did have a free (as in beer) or at least cheaper means to do that (perhaps I already own it, perhaps I can pick it up cheap), I am free (as in speech) to do that. Moreover, I am free (as in speech) to host my GPL product in competition with anyone else who might be trying to make money from it, on a level playing field, even if I needed to spend some money to do so.
It's not the $99 that's a problem in itself. It's that it must be paid, it has to be to Apple, and on top of that, they decide which apps are allowed on their platform, theoretically meaning that they might give a monopoly to someone who wasn't the original author of the GPL software.
You are missing his point. Let me rephrase it for you:
"With the iPhone you are not free to redistribute the program for free."
It is the first "free" that is being discussed, and that is certainly free as in speech. The second "free" is irrelevant - he could have said "for a lower price" or "for the same price" or "in exchange for some vegetables".
Perhaps you can point at the specific clause that declares paying $99/yr or whatever to get your binaries signed for distribution is a violation?
No one is claiming it is a violation. But sometimes new issues arise that the GPL did not forsee (e.g., the issue with patents, which resulted in GPL v3). It is perfectly possible to update the GPL, so it isn't simply a case of "Oh it's not against the licence so who cares". I'm not sure what the answer is, but I can see the concern if "free" software is locked up in requirements for paying $99/year to Apple for development, and Apple being able to grant a monopoly to only one developer.
As someone who's written GPL software, I'm happy for people to make money from my work - but that's always been on the understanding that I could always compete with them on a level playing field (and hence, the only realistic way for them to make money is to genuinely add value, otherwise I could simply offer the same product for free in competition with them). But that goes out the window if Apple grant a monopoly to them, and I am locked out of distributing my software on the Iphone, simply because they got to the app store first.
How will Apple deal with these issues if someone else tries to upload the same or similar product? Will they allow both? Will they give priority to the one who wrote the original GPL application, and not the author of the derivative work? Or will it be a case of first-come-first-serve to the app store?
Yes exactly. Whilst charging for software is explicitly allowed under the GPL, Apple's way of handling the app store does present a new problem. The question is, if the original author (or anyone else) decided to submit the Iphone app to the app store, for a lower price (or perhaps for free), would Apple accept it? If so, fair enough. But if not (perhaps on the grounds of duplication), then they're granting a monopoly to one author (since people can't download apps from elsewhere), and I'd argue that that isn't in the spirit of the GPL.
Effectively Apple's restrictions on what code can be run on the Iphone have placed additional restrictions on his software. Perhaps a new version of the GPL is needed to deal with this, similar to what happened with patents, IIRC?
Which is what I said with more explanation. A kernel is not an OS, even if they share some libraries. By that logic, OS X is Darwin, and Iphone OS is NEXT.
Iphone OS is simply not the same OS as OS X that runs on desktops. Crying about how much in common is irrelevant - as long as there's some that's different, you're not running the same thing. (Not sure why this is such an issue - I imagine people want to go "Wow, Iphones can run the same OS as desktops", though this is misleading, they're not doing anything different to other phones.)
Even if you might argue that survival is a necessary quality for useful AI, the point is that it's not a sufficiency. Nor should it be a better metric.
OS X only runs on Macs, and as good as Linux is, it doesn't (sadly) seem to be gaining market share.
I can just see them quaking.
There are obvious reasons for them wanting to expand there share on netbooks and other mobile devices, but I don't think there worried about competition on the desktop.
And OS X more user friendly?
He's still wrong - I'm pretty sure mp3 phones were around before 5 years ago, and it was also around 2004 that companies were hyping viewing video on then new 3G phones.
Now 11 years ago, that's when we laughed at the idea of video on compuers :)
And similarly, with Intel Core Duo, Pentium Dual Core, Celeron, and AMD Athlon 64.
No, Iphone OS is not OS X. Even if they did share some code. You might as well claim that Windows already runs on ARM and loads more (due to Windows CE).
Well they've been selling Linux netbooks. Remember that lots of people are buying these to access the Internet, and not to run general applications. An ARM Windows netbook won't have the disadvantages of unfamiliarity, or people who insist on Windows because that's all they know. It'll also be much easier to port apps to it from x86 Windows, than to Linux.
Anyhow, Microsoft themselves could supply web browser, email client, IM program, complete office suite, media player, which covers most people's uses of netbooks.
The benefit to Windows XP being around for so long is that Microsoft had a long time to make it stable.
Before that even - Windows 2000 is rock solid. The important point is that they're all derived from the much more stable NT line, as opposed to the shoddy Windows 9x that everyone remembers, and still seems to give Windows a bad name, even though it was a completely different OS (it would be like criticising OS X for the flaws in the joke that was classic MacOS).
I'm not sure what you mean with your PPC comparison? ARM have shipped 10 billion CPUs. Intel have shipped between 1 and 2 billion. ( http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9131098/ARM_Heretic_in_the_church_of_Intel_Moore_s_Law ) I'm not sure what total PPC sales, but they're not even remotely close to ARM.
What market are they going after with this, netbook's with ARM instead of Atom cpus?
Presumably. As TFS points out, the line between PCs and mobiles is becoming less distinct. I must admit, personally I'd have a preference for x86, because of compatability with PCs (which I will always prefer as a platform over locked down phones), but it's not like ARM are some niche player here.
Indeed, and AFAICT that's all Wolfram are claiming here - they own the copyright to the presentation of those facts, not the facts themselves (which would obviously be silly).
What if I create something on the PC at my place of employment?
No one's claiming copyright on facts. The issue is the expression of that information. Are you saying that Wikipedia or Britannica aren't covered by copyright? Obviously they are. If the Wolfram Alpha results were produced by a human, they would too. The question is, does that change if the final presentation step is automated by a program?
Hmm - so what if I write a computer program that generates search strings to send to Wolfram Alpha. Who owns the copyright??
(What if my computer program generates its strings based on parsing copyrighted material that it accesses online?)
I'm not saying Alpha should be copyrighted, but those are non-sequitors - just because a court ruled that one instance of software results was a creative work, doesn't mean that all results of software are creative. Just as the fact that humans can copyright most photographs they create, doesn't mean that a photograph of public domain artwork can be copyrighted. It can't, because there is no creative element.
The physical examples of monitors, cameras and phones would certainly fail the requirement for any creative element.
Also the ruling might be made on other grounds - e.g., that it runs on their servers. After all, it's standard practice that if you use your work PC to do something, the copyright automatically belongs to the company (even if you do it in your own time). This would obviously have ramifications for online services, but wouldn't affect any other kind of software, let alone physical products that you own.
Yes, I remember seeing low cost versions that were "not for commercial use" and so on. I often wondered how that was enforceable - has it ever been tested in court?
I assumed it was because there would be some code inserted by the compiler (I dunno, start up stuff, or required libraries?), and the point is that that code was written by a person, and hence the company owned copyright on it. But that's just a guess - anyone know any better?
Well by that logic, nothing is "creative", because we're just machines that are producing works based on computation made by our brains (unless you want to claim that there's something mystical about humans).
So there are two possibilities: either we say that creativity is something that can never apply to software (even if someone writes a human level AI that is indistinguishable from a creative human), or alternatively we judge "creativity" in the same way we judge humans.
US courts have already ruled that hard work is not sufficient for copyright, there needs to be some originality, so I'm not sure that a process such as compiling would ever be considered "creative", even if it was done by hand. Should what Alpha does be considered creative too? I don't know - probably not. However, the point is that even if a court ruled that it should be copyrightable, this does not imply that all other software results would be copyrightable. Just as a court ruling that a painting made by a human is copyrightable, doesn't mean that taking a photo of a public domain artwork is copyrightable.
One question that I have trouble answering: supposing a company took requests for research, then had its employees compile its results, perhaps using computers along the way, and then present them back to the person who requested it. Clearly in that case, copyright belongs by default to the company. But what if they then gradually switched to using a fully computerised method, but didn't advertise this fact? Should this suddenly mean they lose copyright? Would a court have to investigate the internal processes in order to judge whether it should be copyrightable?
There is another point by which a distinction could be made: the copyright belongs to the person controlling the software. So in my example above, the employees are entering the data to their software, and so the company owns the copyright. But a person using a compiler, or perhaps an automatic music generator, is the one inputting the data, and so should own the copyright. In both cases, the software is irrelevant. Alpha gets tricky, because it's online - they could make the argument that the software is running on servers owned by them. OTOH, there's the argument that the user is still using the software, and should own the copyright. If online software was treated differently, this would be a cause for concern, though online software already has dangers regarding licencing, in that software companies can charge for it as a service, unlike offline client-side software.
I suspect that good bands will still become popular, and be as part of culture, just not as much as the OTT way it happens now.
Consider the example of subcultures, as you give yourself with metal - surely you've experienced that you can talk about other bands or quote lyrics, and people in that subculture will know what you mean, even if the bands have never received any mainstream advertising. Perhaps it will mean that musical culture will become focused on particular subcultures rather than shared by all, but I don't think that's a bad thing.
People said the same thing about TV going from 4 channels to 100s - "but I won't be able to discuss with my friends what was on the TV last night". But in fact, you still can, because even though there's 100s of channels, good TV still spreads through word of mouth, and people start watching things that they hear their friends talking about. Same with music. Does it matter if there isn't a common cultural interest in music or TV between you and a complete random stranger?
But there is friction - that's the whole problem in the first place, that friction from the atmosphere is causing the orbit to degrade. So the issue is whether the acceleration from an engine is sufficient to overcome that. I have no idea whether that is the case or not.
How many permanent American non-native towns were there in 1492?
I don't think anyone is saying we should give up space exploration, the point is that building a permanent space station in orbit is not yet feasible or sensible. Maybe in a few hundred years that will be feasible - just as it took hundreds of years for America to develop into the USA.
You appear to be arguing "Why I personally choose to use Apple's App store".
The argument that the rest of us are having is "Why should Apple stop people from downloading from non-Apple stores, if that user wants?"