Everybody thinks they need a million dollars to start, but in reality you can probably get started for a few hundred or a few thousand.
It really depends on your idea. Some ideas can be implemented for $0. Others might take thousands, others will take tens or hundreds of thousands. Some ideas could take billions or trillions. They all might be ultimately profitable, but some have high startup costs, and some don't. It depends on the nature of the idea.
When evaluating services like this, I want to see who's already there. I want to do this without calling attention to myself or anyone else. If I like what I see, then I'll participate further -- fill out a profile, hook up to already-registered friends, tell other people about it, etc. Forcing me to offer up five contacts as tribute violates this principle.
If software was not copyrighted, the world of software development would be free to take and use any code they wanted from anywhere, at any time, and do anything with it they pleased.
Sure, that's the point.
This would lead to the distribution of much of what is now "free" software, but in compiled form, sold only after being compiled with a compiler which would completely obfuscate the resulting executable making it exceedingly hard to reverse engineer/decompile the code.
Sure, some would be distributed that way, but most wouldn't. Source code itself is obfuscated enough to kill competition. How often do you see real forks in GPLed products? Simple compilation is enough to kill the rest.
Essentially, we would live in a world where the highest paid engineers were those who know how to obfuscate well.
That's complete nonsense. Once obfuscation tools were written, they wouldn't need to be rewritten over and over again. The only shift in who is highest paid might be that system administrators would probably gain ground against software engineers. Since that brand new shiny firewall would be virtually free, a lot of the saved money would go to the person who maintains it.
"Free" software wouldn't gain anything, and indeed may be eclipsed by closed source versions of software which have proprietary modifications to make them more attractive.
I think free software would gain a whole lot. This would force everyone else to raise money for projects the same way as they do, through support, and with equal footing on the funding issues the benefits of having source code would start to shine. Of course, free software authors and advocates could no longer rely on forcing others to release source. They'd have to earn their keep just like everyone else. If you're an advocate of forcing "what's best for people" on them then this might be a bad thing. But I think choice is a good thing. You can choose to buy obfuscated software, or you can choose to buy open source software.
Unlike todays situation where closed source companies cannot make effective business use of GPLd (or similar) code, we would enter into an era of unparalleled code theft and plagiarism. Legal, of course.
No one said anything about making theft or plagiarism legal. Only copyright infringement.
What I think the FSF wants to get to, is a point where copyright *does not apply* to software, and in addition, it becomes a legal requirement to distribute copies of source code with all software.
Yeah, that's essentially what they want.
In return for the legal protection of copyright, developers should have to distribute their source code - this I do not argue with at all - but copyright (or copyleft) itself will still be required to keep free software free.
You mean, to keep derivatives of free software to be free. Free software is always free, regardless of copyright protection.
Whether or not free software is the only solution is more debatable. If an author wants to hide his source code, that should be his right. We don't need government getting involved in protecting consumers from themselves. If people want to buy binaries without source, that should be their right.
Note, that I am primarily a closed source user, but would prefer copyrighted software with mandated source code distribution.
I'd prefer abolishment of copyright on software. Mandating source code distribution accomplishes absolutely nothing.
As an addendum to my previous post, if you are OK with someone taking your code, making changes, and using that in their product sold commercialy, why didn't you use the BSD license in the first place?
Isn't that what RedHat does? The GPL doesn't prevent this.
However, I disagree that it's like your landlord: you entered into contract with your landlord willingly after considering your options. I was born here.
So if I was born in this apartment, then I'd have a reasonable argument? Can I set up a bed in the hospital where I was born, and complain about guys with guns when they try to kick me out? I never entered into a contract with them.
As soon as you have a published address (phone numbers still work for this), you can be put on a list.
Sure, but not the current "do-not-call" list. I thought the question was whether or not the current rules would apply. Obviously new ones could be passed (though they might need additional congressional approval).
What blows me away is the Federal Government uses words like "revenue" when describing the taxes that they take from us, using the threat of a barrel of a gun to make sure we pay.
Kind of like my landlord.
That's most emphatically not "revenue", which is money earned in exchange for goods and/or services entered into willingly by both parties.
Oh wait, actually at my last job I was forced to use Windows. When the company purchased a new computer for me (I'm a software developer) I requested an Apple but was turned down.
Well, if you're gonna get technical about what being "forced" means, you weren't forced to use Windows either. You could have quit your job, after all...
C'mon, clearly CowboyNeal didn't mean that people were tied down and had their eyes forced open a la Clockwork Orange. Most of us are "forced" to use Windows in one way or another.
Will they have a patch available withing the next day or so? You can guarantee that the Mozilla or Konqueror communities would have in the same circumstances..
Hmm, I seem to remember an issue with certain fonts or somesuch crashing Mozilla which wasn't fixed until weeks after it was actively exploited on Slashdot (and had been reported months before that). Sure, the Slashdot exploits weren't running arbitrary code, but if they were written right they could have been.
Although I do understand your arguments, the point that I was trying to make is that the burden of proof is shifted.
Right. And the point I am trying to make is that the burden of proof is not shifted.
If I come up to you and tell you that you have violated a copyright and then not prove that you violated a copyright you would not comply with my demands?
Depends if I was violating your copyright or not. If I wasn't, I wouldn't comply.
But the problem here is that the ISP are only granted a safe harbor if they comply with the takedown notice. If they fail to comply with the notice, then they are liable.
Right, and before the DMCA they were liable regardless of whether or not they took down the content.
This is a constitutional issue.
It may or may not be a constitutional issue, but if so it has nothing to do with the DMCA. The DMCA does not create strict liability. Copyright law does.
Becuase you run an ISP, and Joe posts something that seems that is derogitory to somebody. Jack comes along and claims copyright protection, and issues a take down notice under the DMCA. The ISP then takes down the comments because of DMCA fears. Joe has been censured, and since Joe is a poor guy he doesn't fight it. That is the reason why the take-down notices are a crock.
Have you been reading any of what I've wrote? In the absense of the DMCA, a cease and desist order could be sent, and it would have exactly the same effect.
The problem is that there is no requirement to prove that a copyright has been violated in order to issue a takedown notice -- ISP's will comply just because of the fear.
And by complying, the ISP is the one censuring speech, not the government. By the way, what is it that ISPs fear? They fear a lawsuit. For what? Not for violating the DMCA. The DMCA is not violated by refusing to comply with a takedown notice. Copyright law, not the DMCA, is what is violated, copyright law, not the DMCA, is what the lawsuit would be over, and copyright law, not the DMCA, is what the ISPs fear violating.
In normal court when you file a subpoenia is has to be approved by a judge and as part of a suit or pending court case. The DMCA approves the use of subpoenias and allows them to be used outside a court case.
As I said, the subpoena issue is a different issue, and I agree for the most part that it is a bad part of the DMCA. Maybe even unconstitutional (the ACLU claims it is, anyway).
Foolish? What, do you encrypt your hard drive? Because if not, your security is just as foolish against an attacker with physical access to the computer.
Hmm, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a bridged connection, but presumably many ADSL connections would qualify. I mean, it's called PPP-over-ethernet, not PPP-over-IP. So the MAC address must be getting passed on, right?
Can I still backup this CD if I baught it and not be a felon?
Yep.
Does fair use outweigh the DMCA or does the DMCA outweigh fair use?
RTFDMCA. Section 1201(c)(1) "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."
The DMCA is a poorly thought out bill that has had a lot of repricussions throughout the computer industry.
If you read the law you'll find it's actually very well thought out.
This bill has the effect of making it illegal for anyone to learn how locks work or test them to ensure that theifs can't get in.
Actually, research is specifically exempted from the DMCA.
If I go out and buy a copy of windows before buying a couple hundred copies, and go down to the local 2600 hacker meeting to ask the hackers to test the security on this thing, anything they do to break protection schemes on the software is breaking the law.
Security testing is also explicitly exempted from the law.
This is the arguement I intend to use. That by passing this law, they have made it illegal for customers of software to ensure that what they are buying is quality and moreso, to look over the programming to ensure it works right.
Try reading the DMCA first. None of what you suggest being illegal is illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have any problem with people shipping jobs offshore. It's what they do with the money that they save that concerns me.
Everybody thinks they need a million dollars to start, but in reality you can probably get started for a few hundred or a few thousand.
It really depends on your idea. Some ideas can be implemented for $0. Others might take thousands, others will take tens or hundreds of thousands. Some ideas could take billions or trillions. They all might be ultimately profitable, but some have high startup costs, and some don't. It depends on the nature of the idea.
When evaluating services like this, I want to see who's already there. I want to do this without calling attention to myself or anyone else. If I like what I see, then I'll participate further -- fill out a profile, hook up to already-registered friends, tell other people about it, etc. Forcing me to offer up five contacts as tribute violates this principle.
www.mailinator.com
I'll take $10 million, please.
If software was not copyrighted, the world of software development would be free to take and use any code they wanted from anywhere, at any time, and do anything with it they pleased.
Sure, that's the point.
This would lead to the distribution of much of what is now "free" software, but in compiled form, sold only after being compiled with a compiler which would completely obfuscate the resulting executable making it exceedingly hard to reverse engineer/decompile the code.
Sure, some would be distributed that way, but most wouldn't. Source code itself is obfuscated enough to kill competition. How often do you see real forks in GPLed products? Simple compilation is enough to kill the rest.
Essentially, we would live in a world where the highest paid engineers were those who know how to obfuscate well.
That's complete nonsense. Once obfuscation tools were written, they wouldn't need to be rewritten over and over again. The only shift in who is highest paid might be that system administrators would probably gain ground against software engineers. Since that brand new shiny firewall would be virtually free, a lot of the saved money would go to the person who maintains it.
"Free" software wouldn't gain anything, and indeed may be eclipsed by closed source versions of software which have proprietary modifications to make them more attractive.
I think free software would gain a whole lot. This would force everyone else to raise money for projects the same way as they do, through support, and with equal footing on the funding issues the benefits of having source code would start to shine. Of course, free software authors and advocates could no longer rely on forcing others to release source. They'd have to earn their keep just like everyone else. If you're an advocate of forcing "what's best for people" on them then this might be a bad thing. But I think choice is a good thing. You can choose to buy obfuscated software, or you can choose to buy open source software.
Unlike todays situation where closed source companies cannot make effective business use of GPLd (or similar) code, we would enter into an era of unparalleled code theft and plagiarism. Legal, of course.
No one said anything about making theft or plagiarism legal. Only copyright infringement.
What I think the FSF wants to get to, is a point where copyright *does not apply* to software, and in addition, it becomes a legal requirement to distribute copies of source code with all software.
Yeah, that's essentially what they want.
In return for the legal protection of copyright, developers should have to distribute their source code - this I do not argue with at all - but copyright (or copyleft) itself will still be required to keep free software free.
You mean, to keep derivatives of free software to be free. Free software is always free, regardless of copyright protection.
Whether or not free software is the only solution is more debatable. If an author wants to hide his source code, that should be his right. We don't need government getting involved in protecting consumers from themselves. If people want to buy binaries without source, that should be their right.
Note, that I am primarily a closed source user, but would prefer copyrighted software with mandated source code distribution.
I'd prefer abolishment of copyright on software. Mandating source code distribution accomplishes absolutely nothing.
How do you recover accidentally deleted files in Reiserfs?
It's really easy. You just restore from backup.
As an addendum to my previous post, if you are OK with someone taking your code, making changes, and using that in their product sold commercialy, why didn't you use the BSD license in the first place?
Isn't that what RedHat does? The GPL doesn't prevent this.
However, I disagree that it's like your landlord: you entered into contract with your landlord willingly after considering your options. I was born here.
So if I was born in this apartment, then I'd have a reasonable argument? Can I set up a bed in the hospital where I was born, and complain about guys with guns when they try to kick me out? I never entered into a contract with them.
As soon as you have a published address (phone numbers still work for this), you can be put on a list.
Sure, but not the current "do-not-call" list. I thought the question was whether or not the current rules would apply. Obviously new ones could be passed (though they might need additional congressional approval).
Galileo are belong to US.
So if the government had stayed out, it would never have happened at all.
Nah, if the goverment had stayed out, it would be called AOL.
With the new bill legalizing spam, advertisers have a new place to go.
Didn't you get the memo?
Would the "do not call" list still apply?
If you don't have a phone number, you can't put yourself on the "do not call" list in the first place.
Do you consider universal affordable phone service to be a social good worth paying for?
Not really. If you want to live out in the sticks, you can pay for it.
And just how would they enforce any such regulation?
Threat of jail-time would probably catch people's attention.
No, I think he means they join the national guard more than non-Libertarians.
What blows me away is the Federal Government uses words like "revenue" when describing the taxes that they take from us, using the threat of a barrel of a gun to make sure we pay.
Kind of like my landlord.
That's most emphatically not "revenue", which is money earned in exchange for goods and/or services entered into willingly by both parties.
How'd you come up with that definition?
Good point. This has been bugging me for a while now. (Tools, Options, General, Set Default Browser). There. Much better.
Oh wait, actually at my last job I was forced to use Windows. When the company purchased a new computer for me (I'm a software developer) I requested an Apple but was turned down.
Well, if you're gonna get technical about what being "forced" means, you weren't forced to use Windows either. You could have quit your job, after all...
C'mon, clearly CowboyNeal didn't mean that people were tied down and had their eyes forced open a la Clockwork Orange. Most of us are "forced" to use Windows in one way or another.
Will they have a patch available withing the next day or so? You can guarantee that the Mozilla or Konqueror communities would have in the same circumstances..
Hmm, I seem to remember an issue with certain fonts or somesuch crashing Mozilla which wasn't fixed until weeks after it was actively exploited on Slashdot (and had been reported months before that). Sure, the Slashdot exploits weren't running arbitrary code, but if they were written right they could have been.
Although I do understand your arguments, the point that I was trying to make is that the burden of proof is shifted.
Right. And the point I am trying to make is that the burden of proof is not shifted.
If I come up to you and tell you that you have violated a copyright and then not prove that you violated a copyright you would not comply with my demands?
Depends if I was violating your copyright or not. If I wasn't, I wouldn't comply.
But the problem here is that the ISP are only granted a safe harbor if they comply with the takedown notice. If they fail to comply with the notice, then they are liable.
Right, and before the DMCA they were liable regardless of whether or not they took down the content.
This is a constitutional issue.
It may or may not be a constitutional issue, but if so it has nothing to do with the DMCA. The DMCA does not create strict liability. Copyright law does.
Becuase you run an ISP, and Joe posts something that seems that is derogitory to somebody. Jack comes along and claims copyright protection, and issues a take down notice under the DMCA. The ISP then takes down the comments because of DMCA fears. Joe has been censured, and since Joe is a poor guy he doesn't fight it. That is the reason why the take-down notices are a crock.
Have you been reading any of what I've wrote? In the absense of the DMCA, a cease and desist order could be sent, and it would have exactly the same effect.
The problem is that there is no requirement to prove that a copyright has been violated in order to issue a takedown notice -- ISP's will comply just because of the fear.
And by complying, the ISP is the one censuring speech, not the government. By the way, what is it that ISPs fear? They fear a lawsuit. For what? Not for violating the DMCA. The DMCA is not violated by refusing to comply with a takedown notice. Copyright law, not the DMCA, is what is violated, copyright law, not the DMCA, is what the lawsuit would be over, and copyright law, not the DMCA, is what the ISPs fear violating.
In normal court when you file a subpoenia is has to be approved by a judge and as part of a suit or pending court case. The DMCA approves the use of subpoenias and allows them to be used outside a court case.
As I said, the subpoena issue is a different issue, and I agree for the most part that it is a bad part of the DMCA. Maybe even unconstitutional (the ACLU claims it is, anyway).
Foolish? What, do you encrypt your hard drive? Because if not, your security is just as foolish against an attacker with physical access to the computer.
Only on a bridged connection
Hmm, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a bridged connection, but presumably many ADSL connections would qualify. I mean, it's called PPP-over-ethernet, not PPP-over-IP. So the MAC address must be getting passed on, right?
Can I still backup this CD if I baught it and not be a felon?
Yep.
Does fair use outweigh the DMCA or does the DMCA outweigh fair use?
RTFDMCA. Section 1201(c)(1) "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."
The DMCA is a poorly thought out bill that has had a lot of repricussions throughout the computer industry.
If you read the law you'll find it's actually very well thought out.
This bill has the effect of making it illegal for anyone to learn how locks work or test them to ensure that theifs can't get in.
Actually, research is specifically exempted from the DMCA.
If I go out and buy a copy of windows before buying a couple hundred copies, and go down to the local 2600 hacker meeting to ask the hackers to test the security on this thing, anything they do to break protection schemes on the software is breaking the law.
Security testing is also explicitly exempted from the law.
This is the arguement I intend to use. That by passing this law, they have made it illegal for customers of software to ensure that what they are buying is quality and moreso, to look over the programming to ensure it works right.
Try reading the DMCA first. None of what you suggest being illegal is illegal.