As I read the APSL, it's simply and open licence that also ensures that Apple remains removed from you. That seems perfectly reasonable. GNU doesn't like it because of the termination clause, but when you think about it, it's entirely nessesary. What if a version with your modifications becomes the norm, even becomes packaged with Apple machines. If that happens, and you get accused of infringing on someone elses patented work, Apple could be in serious trouble. By terminating the agreement and stopping distribution of your code, Apple can keep themselves free from you. Just because they terminate does not mean they will sue you. As near as I can tell, the APSL is a very very open license for a corporation and is what we arround here might call a Good Thing (TM).
OTOH, I seem to have picked up a flaw in the GPL, which may be the reason corporations have been slow to take up software released under the GPL. If as you say, proprietary or APSL and other less open licensed software was not permissable within GPL software, many companies would not want to take up that software. The reason being is many companies develop their own private modifications to software. For example, I worked for a time at a well know power company which shall remain nameless. This company had a software suit which they had purchased which provided for the creation and movement of troubleshooting "tickets". The software in it's basic form was useable, but the company had other needs. They wrote modifications to the software (with the original creators permission) to run within their networks and throughout the company. If under a GPL license the company would have had to opensource their modifications and release them under the GPL, the company would not have taken up the GPL software.
Freedom is a good thing, but forcing people to open their code is almost as bad as the closed code is.
Please show me a TOL PC for $500 bucks. If you can put it together for me, with a 17inch minimum monitor (preferably a 15inch LCD) I will buy it from you.
Well, maybe you should start buying then, if you consider that an average 15inch LCD monitor will cost somewheres between $300 and $500, and then you take a look at the lowend iMac at 1,300 you will see that the G4 iMac will cost you $800, plus $500 for the LCD display, giving you a very nice computer for a decent price. On the other hand, you probably were reffering to towers. In which case I really can't help you there. I suppose you could check www.dealmac.com for some of the older model G4s at nice discounts. Might I also suggest the Apple lease (which is decent) or my personal favorite, find a friend of your's who is an educator and have them buy you a machine at educator discount and then pay them for it. Or even better, if they're a student, buy them a student ADC package, and have them use the hardware discount ot get upto 20% off the hardware.
Right, OS X is dying, that's why slashdot is actualy reporting on Apple relevent topics. THey have an Apple section. That's why Apple's stock is at a decently healthy $14 per share. That's why over the last 52 weeks, their lowest has been $13 per share, and their highest $26 per share. That's why the media is reporting on Apple with headlines other than "Apple is Dying". That's why Apple is one of the few companies that made any decent amount of money during the tech marcket downturn. Of course OS X is dying, just like Linux is a dead dog.
If they advertise iDVD's DVD-burning capabilities as part of the OS (which they do, you can check their OS X site yourself), they should permit hardware developers to add support for their hardware to the software. Once Microsoft has DVD-burning support built into Windows XP, the hardware developers will simply see one more advantage on that side that they won't get on Apple's OS, because they have to compete with Apple.
Except for the fact that OWC does not manufacture the third-party drives. Were that the case, this may be a different matter. Nor is apple preventing the users from cracking their own software, or preventing them from downloading or purchasing another DVD burning suite. As it stands, one of iDVDs software requirements is that you have an Apple DVD burner. That's no different than making software whihc will only run on x86 hardware. The people who do the mac ports have to buy a right to port said software for other compatibility. OWC did not ask Apple for permission ot increase the compatibility base.
The best part, though, is that Apple's buying these drives, which sell for less than $350 retail, slapping their brand name on them, and selling them, with the purchase of a system, for $450. So, even if they bought them at the high retail price they'd be making $100 on each drive they sold, and close to $200 per drive if they were getting them at low retail price.
Apple is making a profit, they are conducting business, and thus far they have not run into problems. Like everything in life, cost is a trade off. If you choose not to pay the price for the Apple drives, you don't get native iDVD support. Just like with music if you choose to download an album, you don't get the cover art, an original disk or any of the extras that can come with an album. It's that simple, and Apple isn't forcing you to buy their hardware. They are simply telling you if you want to use their software you need their hardware.
As I read it, this is what OWC is doing. They are purchasing G4s from apple, as an autorized reseller, without the DVD Burners, and placing a third party DVD burner in the drive (Which makes sense as it comes out to be cheaper). They are then reselling these computers (as they are licensenced to do) but they are bundling or possibly even installing a crack onto the Apple software. Cracking the software in this manner and then redistributing it, regardless of whether you legaly paid for the licence of not, is, AFAIK ilegal under current copyright law. That isn't to say that OWC can do this on their own machines within their company, or provide the crack on their website (though that may also be illegal, I'm not sure) however, Apple's objection is bundling this with a machine, thus inticing those that may have paid extra for the Apple bundle to pay for the cheaper model. As it stands, they have not overstepped theri bounds.
Apple is stopping the end user from patching his own system (via creating or downloading a patch) what they are stopping is an Apple Distributor from selling machines with the patch already.
So fine, OWC can have thier customers stand on the sidewalk by writing their own Burning software. Sure you don't get all the nice benifits of iDVD, but them's the breaks. But selling the machine with a crack is akin to opening the back door to let your friends in free of charge
Because, if it goes with the burner, and someone else makes it work with another burner andthen sells a machine without the appl eburnere, they haven't made their money on the distribution have they?
They're not telling developers that developing a new buring program to support other drives is illegal. WHat they are saying is that for a distributor to crack their software, and then sell a machine with non-apple hardware is illegal. And it is.
That's a shame, because I see it as being basicaly the same thing. But I guess when you buid up a bad rep with your customers, people will deal with you in a less forgiving way. Gee, sorta like the real world.
Prisoners are paid considerably less than minimum wage, somewhere between $0.05 and $1.00 an hour (before taxes). This pittance is mainly to avoid accusations of outright slavery.
The article I was linked to gave a figure in the range of $4 something an hour. It also stated that at the time of the article being written, it was minimum wage.
Ambrosia (www.ambrosiasw.com) does a nice job at realeasing new and fresh titles. Yes they also have sequals (The EV series is one of the best game series out there) but they have some originals too. Unfortunately for all my PC lovin buddies, they're a mac only company.
The worst you can loose over the period of one post is 3 points (2->1, 1->0, 0->3) That's not a whole lot. Espesialy if you're already at the cap. You can freely express your opinions.
Now here's a question, what if you develop sourcecode for an MP3 player (decoder) and anonymously post it on web boards all over. Who pays the license fee then?
Why not post with your login and allow the moderators to moderate you. Fuck Karma and stand up for what you belive in. What you're doing is protesting the DMCA by sendind an anonymous letter to congress.
Actualy, in my opinion, Music should be copyright by the original group, for as long as that group is in buisiness. For example, Beatles music should be public domain, the Beatles as a group are no more. Chicago music on the otherhand remains in copywrite because the group is still together and still performing.
Slashdot Mirror
As I read the APSL, it's simply and open licence that also ensures that Apple remains removed from you. That seems perfectly reasonable. GNU doesn't like it because of the termination clause, but when you think about it, it's entirely nessesary. What if a version with your modifications becomes the norm, even becomes packaged with Apple machines. If that happens, and you get accused of infringing on someone elses patented work, Apple could be in serious trouble. By terminating the agreement and stopping distribution of your code, Apple can keep themselves free from you. Just because they terminate does not mean they will sue you. As near as I can tell, the APSL is a very very open license for a corporation and is what we arround here might call a Good Thing (TM).
OTOH, I seem to have picked up a flaw in the GPL, which may be the reason corporations have been slow to take up software released under the GPL. If as you say, proprietary or APSL and other less open licensed software was not permissable within GPL software, many companies would not want to take up that software. The reason being is many companies develop their own private modifications to software. For example, I worked for a time at a well know power company which shall remain nameless. This company had a software suit which they had purchased which provided for the creation and movement of troubleshooting "tickets". The software in it's basic form was useable, but the company had other needs. They wrote modifications to the software (with the original creators permission) to run within their networks and throughout the company. If under a GPL license the company would have had to opensource their modifications and release them under the GPL, the company would not have taken up the GPL software.
Freedom is a good thing, but forcing people to open their code is almost as bad as the closed code is.
Please show me a TOL PC for $500 bucks. If you can put it together for me, with a 17inch minimum monitor (preferably a 15inch LCD) I will buy it from you.
Since when was asking for proof of a statement considered flamebait?
hand me-downs. You mean like:
The Floppy Drive, no we had that first
The home computer, no we had that first too
The mouse, no we had that one first
The GUI, no Xerox had that but didn't want it, we got it and made it good.
Oh I know SCSI, no wait, that was another first for us.
You must mean USB, well yeah Intel developed that first, but they just sat on it, Apple ran with it and wow, now look where it is.
Oh you mean 64 bit processors for consumers, no wait that was us too.
You must mean M$ programs, no wait we had those first too.
Oh well
Your sig can actualy be simplified to one mind boggling statement.
"This statement is false"
what bait and switch did they pull with OSS
Well, maybe you should start buying then, if you consider that an average 15inch LCD monitor will cost somewheres between $300 and $500, and then you take a look at the lowend iMac at 1,300 you will see that the G4 iMac will cost you $800, plus $500 for the LCD display, giving you a very nice computer for a decent price. On the other hand, you probably were reffering to towers. In which case I really can't help you there. I suppose you could check www.dealmac.com for some of the older model G4s at nice discounts. Might I also suggest the Apple lease (which is decent) or my personal favorite, find a friend of your's who is an educator and have them buy you a machine at educator discount and then pay them for it. Or even better, if they're a student, buy them a student ADC package, and have them use the hardware discount ot get upto 20% off the hardware.
Or you could stop wasting you rmoney upgrading you raging PC and buy the mac with the money you save...... Just a suggestion
Right, OS X is dying, that's why slashdot is actualy reporting on Apple relevent topics. THey have an Apple section. That's why Apple's stock is at a decently healthy $14 per share. That's why over the last 52 weeks, their lowest has been $13 per share, and their highest $26 per share. That's why the media is reporting on Apple with headlines other than "Apple is Dying". That's why Apple is one of the few companies that made any decent amount of money during the tech marcket downturn. Of course OS X is dying, just like Linux is a dead dog.
If they advertise iDVD's DVD-burning capabilities as part of the OS (which they do, you can check their OS X site yourself), they should permit hardware developers to add support for their hardware to the software. Once Microsoft has DVD-burning support built into Windows XP, the hardware developers will simply see one more advantage on that side that they won't get on Apple's OS, because they have to compete with Apple.
Except for the fact that OWC does not manufacture the third-party drives. Were that the case, this may be a different matter. Nor is apple preventing the users from cracking their own software, or preventing them from downloading or purchasing another DVD burning suite. As it stands, one of iDVDs software requirements is that you have an Apple DVD burner. That's no different than making software whihc will only run on x86 hardware. The people who do the mac ports have to buy a right to port said software for other compatibility. OWC did not ask Apple for permission ot increase the compatibility base.
The best part, though, is that Apple's buying these drives, which sell for less than $350 retail, slapping their brand name on them, and selling them, with the purchase of a system, for $450. So, even if they bought them at the high retail price they'd be making $100 on each drive they sold, and close to $200 per drive if they were getting them at low retail price.
Apple is making a profit, they are conducting business, and thus far they have not run into problems. Like everything in life, cost is a trade off. If you choose not to pay the price for the Apple drives, you don't get native iDVD support. Just like with music if you choose to download an album, you don't get the cover art, an original disk or any of the extras that can come with an album. It's that simple, and Apple isn't forcing you to buy their hardware. They are simply telling you if you want to use their software you need their hardware.
As I read it, this is what OWC is doing. They are purchasing G4s from apple, as an autorized reseller, without the DVD Burners, and placing a third party DVD burner in the drive (Which makes sense as it comes out to be cheaper). They are then reselling these computers (as they are licensenced to do) but they are bundling or possibly even installing a crack onto the Apple software. Cracking the software in this manner and then redistributing it, regardless of whether you legaly paid for the licence of not, is, AFAIK ilegal under current copyright law. That isn't to say that OWC can do this on their own machines within their company, or provide the crack on their website (though that may also be illegal, I'm not sure) however, Apple's objection is bundling this with a machine, thus inticing those that may have paid extra for the Apple bundle to pay for the cheaper model. As it stands, they have not overstepped theri bounds.
The software is already on someone's hard drive. Legally. They should be able to do what they like with it
And they can, it's the distributors cracking the software that Apple doesn't like.
And if they want to crack the software on their machine they can. They just can't redistribute the cracked version.
Apple is stopping the end user from patching his own system (via creating or downloading a patch) what they are stopping is an Apple Distributor from selling machines with the patch already.
So fine, OWC can have thier customers stand on the sidewalk by writing their own Burning software. Sure you don't get all the nice benifits of iDVD, but them's the breaks. But selling the machine with a crack is akin to opening the back door to let your friends in free of charge
Because, if it goes with the burner, and someone else makes it work with another burner andthen sells a machine without the appl eburnere, they haven't made their money on the distribution have they?
They're not telling developers that developing a new buring program to support other drives is illegal. WHat they are saying is that for a distributor to crack their software, and then sell a machine with non-apple hardware is illegal. And it is.
That's a shame, because I see it as being basicaly the same thing. But I guess when you buid up a bad rep with your customers, people will deal with you in a less forgiving way. Gee, sorta like the real world.
Prisoners are paid considerably less than minimum wage, somewhere between $0.05 and $1.00 an hour (before taxes). This pittance is mainly to avoid accusations of outright slavery.
The article I was linked to gave a figure in the range of $4 something an hour. It also stated that at the time of the article being written, it was minimum wage.
Ambrosia (www.ambrosiasw.com) does a nice job at realeasing new and fresh titles. Yes they also have sequals (The EV series is one of the best game series out there) but they have some originals too. Unfortunately for all my PC lovin buddies, they're a mac only company.
The worst you can loose over the period of one post is 3 points (2->1, 1->0, 0->3) That's not a whole lot. Espesialy if you're already at the cap. You can freely express your opinions.
But if I just distribute the source code for an MP3 player anonomysly then who's going to make me pay?
Now here's a question, what if you develop sourcecode for an MP3 player (decoder) and anonymously post it on web boards all over. Who pays the license fee then?
Why not post with your login and allow the moderators to moderate you. Fuck Karma and stand up for what you belive in. What you're doing is protesting the DMCA by sendind an anonymous letter to congress.
Actualy, in my opinion, Music should be copyright by the original group, for as long as that group is in buisiness. For example, Beatles music should be public domain, the Beatles as a group are no more. Chicago music on the otherhand remains in copywrite because the group is still together and still performing.