I do game development, and I use a lot of open-source libraries (BSD, LGPL, and the like, since I value having my source closed.) Every once in a while people ask me why I rely on libraries that I didn't write myself since, after all, they may be buggy!
[...]
Meanwhile, I have many, many thousands of lines of libraries that just tick along joyfully without a hitch. Overall, it's a huge win, and the fact that they're open-source means that I can fix them if they break.
It really is the way to go.
Too bad your users don't have the same freedoms you enjoy. You're right—software freedom is the way to go. Sharing and improving, truly controlling one's own computer and the social solidarity that gives rise to is the single most important reason why nobody should use proprietary software. Including yours.
There's no question about DRM -- DRM requires proprietary software which does subjugates a user's freedom to read by giving that freedom away to publishers and their agents. The fix is free software: a free software eBook reader would give users control over their electronic copies of works. This outweighs all the alleged advantages of eBook readers because it means the ability to control what we're allowed to read with that device.
You won't truly understand what's going on until you examine the system. You cannot explain why big business loves software patents even if they lose a patent lawsuit here and there.
Microsoft and many other large corporations (particularly IBM which holds the most patents) will never "admit that software patents are just plain bad" because software patents are not bad for them. Software patents pay off very well for them in the long run. Software patents don't benefit society for a variety of reasons which Richard Stallman has expertly gone into in his patent talks. Software patents don't benefit you or me specifically: we are liable to lose a patent infringement lawsuit; ask patent holder Paul Heckel how he was able to get money from Apple in 1990 by threatening to sue Apple's users for infringing a couple of his patents which, according to Heckel's lawyer, read on something Apple was doing in Hypercard. But big businesses benefit and one big business can come close to quantifying that benefit.
As bad as you find patent payoffs to be, that's not the half of it. Cross-licensing patents is worth more and is far more revealing about how patents don't (in the propagandist language lawyers use) "protect" anyone. In IBM's magazine "Think", #5 from 1990, IBM told us how much more patent cross-licensing is worth to them: 10X more. Quoting from a talk Richard Stallman gave about the problem with software patents:
IBM said that they have two kinds of benefits form its 9000 active U.S patents. One benefit was collecting royalties from licenses. But the other benefit, the bigger benefit, was access to things patented by others. From mission to not to be attacked by others but with their patents through cross licensing. And the article said that the second benefit was an order of magnitude greater than the first.
In other words, the benefit of IBM is to make it things freely, not being sued, was ten times the benefit of collecting money from all their patents.
This is why IBM recently filed a friend of the court brief which makes no serious dent in the ability to obtain and use software patents. This is why they don't want the patent system to flatly reject ideas expressed as algorithms in computer software as some other areas of endeavor are simply unpatentable. IBM is the king of the hill. And as the US foists its patent regime on other countries through trade agreements (under duress, no doubt), IBM will be there cheering them on.
So if you don't see that it is the system that needs to be corrected, if you want to go on with "Fuck Eolas"; if you believe that the players in that system are somehow going to turn around and see things your way without any compelling reason to do so, you will find it difficult to understand how to properly reign in the power big business and make big businesses the subordinate of citizens as they ought to be. And to think, this is the easy issue to get right: software patents aren't even a life and death issue like other patents are (we have yet to see the full flower of the ramifications of the Chakrabarty decision which made it possible to patent a living organism, for example), like other corporate-driven/anti-citizen policies are.
I don't care about the publishers' interests. They don't look out for the public's interest (as even a cursory examination of recent copyright law shows) and it's not my job to look out for the publishers' interests. Responding as that loaded question would have us respond respects the framing of the issue as if this should hinge on publisher involvement or approval. Time to take the reins from corporatocracy and define more things to be too important to leave to the market.
Then there's no reason not to support the bill. But more along the lines of your undefended assertion: What's your evidence? I need to see what figures you use to arrive at the conclusion quoted above.
As a matter of principle, I don't see why I should care if people seek other funding sources. As a matter of fact, I find it hard to believe that there will be no takers for public money conditioned on releasing in a manner in line with public use. After all, if we taxpayers paid for the book we should collectively own that work and that means releasing that work to us all under terms that allow sharing, modification, and distribution without royalty. Many government publications already come to us this way and people seem to be okay with continuing to write them.
Professors want to be reimbursed for their many hours of work, not give books away for free (or cheap).
So? And there's nothing that says one won't be paid to write such books. Just that one won't retain copyright to said book and be able to control its distribution for as long as copyright allows.
Dirac strikes me as another codec worth following. It's available to all developers, high-quality, and in production use by the BBC during the Olympics (they said so in their Dirac promotional video). VLC has support for playing back Dirac streams. I'd guessing other players do as well.
I expect Theora and Dirac to be of interest to all who want high-quality free video codecs.
After re-reading TomTom's language, I have one small correction to offer: the phrase "claim with respect to OpenLR" wasn't accounted for in my made-up examples which made my penultimate paragraph less clear than I would have hoped. So putting my poor examples aside the underlying problem remains: TomTom is trying to add an additional restriction that means one could lose their ability to use the software as the GPL would otherwise allow. Additional restrictions are not allowed under the GPL. I think it's reasonable for one to defend their rights under law (including defending against TomTom for OpenLR-related violations) and maintain their rights under the GPL at the same time. I'm guessing TomTom disagrees.
It's relevant because of the attempt to choose GPLv2. If the contribution were under the GPLv2 as the/. submitter wrote, users would not enjoy the same freedom from patent harm as they would under GPLv3. As the FSF points out,
Whenever someone conveys software covered by GPLv3 that they've written or modified, they must provide every recipient with any patent licenses necessary to exercise the rights that the GPL gives them. In addition to that, if any licensee tries to use a patent suit to stop another user from exercising those rights, their license will be terminated.
What this means for users and developers is that they'll be able to work with GPLv3-covered software without worrying that a desperate contributor will try to sue them for patent infringement later. With these changes, GPLv3 affords its users more defenses against patent aggression than any other free software license.
Other consequences that should pique user's interests are consequences of a GPLv2-only licensing: users will not enjoy other GPL improvements such as the more lenient attitude toward license violation found in GPLv3. GPLv2 cuts off a violators rights immediately and irrevocably upon violation. The violator has to beg the copyright holder(s) to restore the rights they had under the GPL. This is the case in most other free software licenses as well. Not so under GPLv3:
GPLv3 offers a reprieve for good behavior: if you violate the license, you'll get your rights back once you stop the violation, unless a copyright holder contacts you within 60 days. After you receive such a notice, you can have your rights fully restored if you're a first-time violator and correct the violation within 30 days. Otherwise, you can work out the issue on a case-by-case basis with the copyright holders who contacted you, and your rights will be restored afterward.
The assertion by licensee of any intellectual property claim with respect to OpenLR against TomTom International B.V., Tele Atlas or any affiliate or parent company of TomTom and Tele Atlas shall be deemed a breach by licensee of this Agreement and the license shall automatically terminate.
This clause would, for example, prohibit me from enforcing my patents, trademarks, mask rights, copyrights, or any of the other rights subsumed under the horribly unclear term "intellectual property" without losing my rights under the GPLv2 for OpenLR. Perhaps TomTom has a popcorn maker in their lobby for which I hold a patent and TomTom is using that popcorn maker without licensing my patent. Perhaps TomTom is diluting a trademark I own. Perhaps TomTom is playing music in their building copyrighted to me and I haven't granted them permission for playing that copyrighted recording. Defending any of these violations means I automatically lose my license on OpenLR and this could prevent me from using software which depends on that license. This is an additional requirement on top of the GPL, and the GPL prohibits it. So as far as I'm concerned, OpenLR isn't licensed to anyone at all under GPL despite TomTom's intentions to the contrary.
Yes, how dare the FSF argue for user's freedom from DRM, freedom to cooperate with their fellows, and make their computer do what they want it to do rather than work within some proprietor's goals. And when the FSF sues someone for copyright infringement demanding compliance with the license followed by restoring the license to share that's just like the RIAA! Talk about bizarre proclamations, take a look at your own post.
In practice, open-source and free software are interchangeable terms, since albeit their definition is slightly different, there is no software license that fulfills one but not the other.
The Apple Public Source License version 1 is an example of an OSI-approved license which is not a free software license. In fact, the APSL 1.x licenses remain a good example of the difference between "open source" and "free software". The differences between the movements put the lie to the use of the term "FOSS" when that term is used to smooth over these differences as if they didn't matter (like the/. headline does on this story). As the FSF said when APSL 1.x was current:
Overall, I think that Apple's action is an example of the effects of the year-old "open source" movement: of its plan to appeal to business with the purely materialistic goal of faster development, while putting aside the deeper issues of freedom, community, cooperation, and what kind of society we want to live in.
Apple has grasped perfectly the concept with which "open source" is promoted, which is "show users the source and they will help you fix bugs". What Apple has not grasped--or has dismissed--is the spirit of free software, which is that we form a community to cooperate on the commons of software.
I'm a manager at a startup, and decided recently to outsource to an outside IT firm to set up a network domain and file server.
You used the past tense. Therefore I see that you've already made the decision to do this and have executed on that decision. The agreements are signed and the admins are working on managing your systems as I write this. A lot follows from this having already gone down. In other words, this detail important to clear up before proceeding because there is a large difference between something you have not yet done and something you have already done and now have to live with.
Trouble is, they (and all other IT companies we could find) insist on administering it all remotely.
Of course they all do. Look at this from their perspective: many organizations hire them to do what you hired them to do. None of these IT admin firms have the staff to do things in-person (as you later contemplate threatening upon the firm you hired) where people expect explanations and instruction while they do what you hired them to do (which, by the way, makes everything take at least twice as long). If you wanted teachers to train your staff, you should have hired said teachers. If you wanted something different, you should have considered this before you contracted with them. Be here now. Best to focus on where you are now and proceed from that point realistically.
They now obviously have full access to all our data and PC's, and I'm concerned they could steal all our intellectual property, source code and customers. Am I being overly paranoid and resistant to change? Should we just trust our administrator because they have a reputation to uphold? Or should we lock them out and make them administer the network in person so we can stand behind and watch them?
Your so-called intellectual property isn't the issue here, you've crossed that bridge. Your issue is you have post-commitment jitters about something you apparently didn't think through. Since you've already inked the deal, it's time to trust your new partners and understand that you don't have the power to "lock them out" in any way that wouldn't constitute a breach of contract or at least erecting circumstances that make them want to get rid of you as clients. You don't have the power to "make them administer the network in person so we can stand behind and watch them" nor would they likely want you to do that. You need to think ahead this time and consider the ramifications of being watched; I'm almost sure you wouldn't want to work that way because hardly anyone wants to work that way. Why would you think they'd want to work that way? You've described nothing unprofessional or bad on their part, so you have no cause to treat them as you describe.
Chalk it up to a lesson about thinking through the details before commitment.
While I can't duplicate your experience with Firefox on MacOS X taking a long time to do stuff, and I don't see tab graphics as an important issue, I do think the preferences would benefit from being native preferences instead of JS preferences.
Firefox has implemented its own preferences system in Javascript which offer some of the functionality of MacOS native preferences (admins can leave a preference alone, set a preference, or lock a preference at a given setting). Firefox preferences, however, can't be pushed down to clients via OpenDirectory (Apple's directory system) like MacOS X native preferences can. As a result, controlling large installations of MacOS X machines (which is typically done via OD) also requires setting up and deploying files which use pref() and lock_pref() to set and lock desired preferences. You need something like radmind to effectively deploy said files in an organized fashion. radmind is good at what it does, but one shouldn't have to take on a whole new distribution scheme to work around a program that doesn't use native features.
I understand that Firefox developers might not have gotten around to integrating the preferences yet. I'm guessing there are other admins who look forward to being able to deploy Firefox and control it in the same way other applications for that operating system can be controlled.
Does Camino use MacOS preferences and allow control via OD like most Mac applications? Will Camino run Firefox plugins?
Making a new name and a new logo (due to trademark restrictions) with the same sources but providing support people feel more comfortable with would be a fork of the project, just as if I were to modify some free software program and provide support for my version of that program.
I'd trust the FSF's take on this more than Wolfram's because the FSF has a long history of interpreting copyright law correctly. The relevant GNU GPL FAQ entry says:
Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from use of my program? For example, if my program is used to develop hardware designs, can I require that these designs must be free?
In general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you any say in the use of the output people make from their data using your program. If the user uses your program to enter or convert his own data, the copyright on the output belongs to him, not you. More generally, when a program translates its input into some other form, the copyright status of the output inherits that of the input it was generated from.
So the only way you have a say in the use of the output is if substantial parts of the output are copied (more or less) from text in your program. For instance, part of the output of Bison (see above) would be covered by the GNU GPL, if we had not made an exception in this specific case.
You could artificially make a program copy certain text into its output even if there is no technical reason to do so. But if that copied text serves no practical purpose, the user could simply delete that text from the output and use only the rest. Then he would not have to obey the conditions on redistribution of the copied text.
Wolfram has no interest in user's freedoms (as should be obvious from their claims to control user's output) but the implications of this are interesting for Wolfram considering what compiler Wolfram is likely using to make GNU/Linux and MacOS X binaries. I think Wolfram is merely looking at this situation with the most restrictive interpretation not just for the user (which is enough reason to reject Wolfram's programs entirely) but with regard to which copyright holder would control what.
Unless that corporation is Wal-Mart and you need assistance with your DRM-riddled audio tracks. Or that corporation is Major League Baseball and you want continuous reliable service for your DRM-riddled videos (for which you pay a subscription fee). Or Apple and you dared to "upgrade" your iPod one too many times (in Apple's view) and Apple won't cooperate by restoring the tracks you paid for (and their software deleted). Or...
If you want reliability you want DRM-free media you can play/transcode as you need, and you need insulation from any single source of support. That insulation comes from the freedoms of free software. CentOS might be forked into something compatible one can transition into later because people with the technical skill and time to deliver a new compatible GNU/Linux distribution.
Funny how when the reality of DRM sets in, it's hard to find supporters of DRM (like Linus Torvalds who doesn't mind Tivoization and objects to the GPLv3 which defeats Tivoization) advocating for less user freedom. The right to read isn't looking so weird anymore (for some, that story was always underrated wisdom).
Please keep this in mind when you next read some open source advocate tell you about how improved developmental methodology, quality of code, or time to market are better metrics for measuring the value of technology. Community, social solidarity, and a steady defense of our freedoms are clearly a better path.
In previous copyright infringement cases in the US and abroad things just aren't that simple. American movie studios tried to argue that the VCR was helping people commit copyright infringement. Prior to The Pirate Bay's trial, The Pirate Bay's servers were stolen in what The Pirate Bay maintains was a joint effort of US government (at the behest of the American movie makers) and the Swedish government. This got Swedes riled, as I understand it, because there's no good reason why Swedes should have to satisfy American movie corporations in their copyright regime (should they choose to have a copyright regime at all). The RIAA is not to be trusted in court. Their history includes threatening the wrong people such as the 2003 threat against Penn State's Prof. Usher who, with his team of researchers, innocently recorded a song in celebration of their new telescope. How did they get caught in the RIAA's all-too-blind dragnet? Apparently they dared to store an MP3 file containing the strings "usher" and ".mp3" in the filename on a publicly-accessible FTP server and nobody at RIAA thought to listen to the file before launching into litigation threats. In 2007, the MPAA committed copyright infringement in their GNU/Linux distribution aimed at making university IT personnel spies on behalf of the MPAA. The MPAA famously illicitly copied the documentary "This Movie Not Yet Rated", which was critical of the MPAA on multiple grounds, and tried to pass their illegal copying as though it were acceptable in the process of issuing a rating for the movie.
People are polarized about this issue because they sometimes see the needless legal suffering and hypocrisy brought by well-funded copyright maximalists and they don't want those maximalists defining the contours of copyright law alone.
Nobody forces you to use copylefted code. If you want some program's functionality under different terms, write your own code. That's the beauty of basing programming in copyright instead of patent law; you can write your own implementation (or have someone write an implementation for you) and use the power to license that code as you wish (assuming you distribute it at all). Copyleft, by the way, doesn't say anything about distributing source code. In fact there are copylefted licenses for works which have no source code. Copylefted licenses preserve certain freedoms in derivative works.
You live in a world of conflicting freedoms, as another poster has already clearly pointed out. We need to decide what we value more and then allow that at the expense of someone else's freedom to do something contrary to that. The free software movement argues for community, social solidarity, and the freedoms RMS talks about at every speech. Hence that movement frames debates in terms of those ethics and works on code licensed to preserve and defend those freedoms. And like most computer programmers world-wide they resort to modifying source code to get their work done.
Closed software loses its binary protection after five years, with little to no gain. (and thanks to RMS there will most likely be an anti time bomb clause in the next party program version)
While I wouldn't frame that as "closed" as I'm not an advocate of the open source movement, I don't understand how any proprietor stands to gain little or nothing from having unhindered access to the wealth of free and open source software out there. Nor do I understand what the parenthetical remark means; clauses in any copyright license would be unenforcible via copyright law when that program goes into the public domain. We can already see proprietary programs with time bombs; programs that are written to behave radically differently depending on when the program is run. Some very expensive commercial proprietary programs rely on such schemes to compel their users to pay for a later version of the same proprietary program (SPSS, for instance; fortunately in this case hackers are working on a free replacement called PSPP).
Modifying binaries is so difficult that virtually nobody does it. You're arguing a corner case at best. And one cannot have freedoms without restrictions because some freedoms conflict. Copyleft is a mechanism that protects for derivative works the freedoms one gets with the copyrighted work, the very freedoms you're eschewing.
It is RMS that wants GPL to be get special treatment, not the other way around.
Most of what you said is non-sequitur but here you touch on a cogent response. Falkvinge's proposal adversely affects all copyleft licenses when compared to any proprietary license. RMS talks about the inequity in terms of how it affects the GPL but he's not requesting any special treatment for the GPL. His favored proposal (escrowing source code) would apply to any program under copyright. I don't know what part of "I could support a law that would make GPL-covered software's source code available in the public domain after 5 years, provided it has the same effect on proprietary software's source code." you missed, but that seems quite clear to me. If RMS is asking for anything special it's for all free software, not GPL'd software.
In 2005 Torvalds chose the politics of siding with Bitkeeper proprietor Larry McVoy over fellow coder Andrew Tridgell when Tridgell dared to write an interoperating program that was compatible with Bitkeeper API. Tridgell had figured out that by telneting to a Bitkeeper repository server and typing "help" he could get a list of relevant commands. Torvalds took McVoy's side saying Tridgell "screwed people over" blaming Tridgell for somehow causing McVoy to no longer allow Torvalds to use the proprietary software source code manager (as opposed to recognizing that as McVoy's choice as it was). Torvalds' arguments against software freedom come off badly for multiple reasons including how often Linux kernel hackers leverage their software freedom to continue improving that kernel. In this case where Microsoft contributes Linux code, it seems prudent to consider if a self-declared enemy of FLOSS would contribute a trojan horse to a prominent program. But this is not a consideration one can take if one views code only in terms of code quality and developmental efficiency. Given how much proprietary software is in Torvalds' fork of the Linux kernel (I'm sure the Linux-libre project can tell you all the details) it seems clear that Torvalds is not as concerned with licenses as the/. quote would indicate. Nor is Torvalds apparently concerned with his users' freedom to know what code is in that fork of Linux.
The phrase "technology over politics" is also a naive position to take: it tries to frame technology and politics as non-overlapping things. In the real world no collaboration is free of politics, that includes technological collaboration. The reason the open source movement exists is because its founders wanted to break away from the older free software movement over a disagreement on politics. The open source movement argues for a technocratic developmental method aimed primarily at benefiting businesses, while the free software movement fights for social solidarity, community, and specific freedoms for all computer users.
Generally, Torvalds gets way more press than he deserves on politics. His views on the proper approach to solving certain problems with the Linux kernel might be well worth one's time to understand and abide by (particularly if one wishes to get their code into his fork of the Linux kernel). But his views in computer-related politics are so often wrong (either in framing the issue or in the side he takes) one wonders why anyone would bother to give him such heed.
I remain unconvinced that non-free software should be eligible for copyright without registering complete corresponding source code with the government upon publication of the proprietary binary. Thus said source code can be released when the program enters the public domain upon copyright expiration. If it turns out that the escrowed source code can't be compiled to produce the released binary that's fraud and the former copyright holder is liable to lose in court in multiple ways: one for the fraudulent escrowed source code and with each litigation from defendants suing to get back their money from suffering the effect of unjustifiably losing copyright infringement cases (the proprietor never had a legitimate copyright, so the defendant should not have lost).
The key to Stallman's essay (which builds on his discussion of this topic dating back to at least 2007 where he gave a talk in Sweden and raised this problem) isn't really about the term of copyright, a subject which seems to be occupying much of the remarkably narrow/. discussion. And talking about "really old versions" doesn't address the inequity Stallman raises, so you're not quite getting the point either. The key to Stallman's essay here is about treating former copyright holders fairly under the new copyright regime by recognizing that proprietors need to contribute to society too. If proprietors benefit from continuing to hoard what they should have published (proprietary software) while others contribute far more to society by publishing something people can build upon (free software) the new copyright regime is biased toward proprietors and should be fixed.
I have yet to hear Rickard Falkvinge adequately address this inequity in his planned copyright policy. I watched a Google talk where he responded to someone who asked about this inequity but his response (about 50 minutes into the recording) did not actually address the problem and the questioner didn't seem to see how Falkvinge dodged the question:
One of the best sought answers is in a signature on the Pirate Party's forum. It says that on one hand, I get unrestricted 24/7 access to all of humanity's knowledge and culture. And the price I pay for that is that in 5 years somebody can take my source code and do whatever they want with it. And that is an easy choice.
From the perspective of the free software movement, this is not an easy choice because it is so clearly prejudiced in favor of software proprietors—the very people and organizations who aren't doing society any favors at all because they do not respect a user's software freedom. Strongly copylefted free software was made to defend what fast policy would strip away.
The other answer I have is that it could still be seen as somewhat skewing the system towards favoring proprietary software. And what we are doing is that we pretty much like open source and free software. In fact we like it a lot. So what we're saying is instead is that the public sector, which has this huge pile of money, whenever it makes purchasing decisions it must actively counteract the formation or continuations of monopolies of information or formats. Essentially, that means not only favoring open source but actively working against proprietary software. So that is my answer.
So, response #1 is essentially that increasing the PD means more than treating those who benefit society fairly. This is ridiculous and unconscionable but (as Stallman points out) fixable. Response #2 is that he believes state purchasing decisions will counteract the fact that proprietors will be able to incorporate copylefted free software into their programs while contributing nothing, not even their own software's source code. If proprietors "aren't doing society any favors at all" then they should not benefit as Falkvinge acknowledges they would. I fail to see how Falkvinge's response here is in any way
Try reading the article next time, particularly the part about how you can't modify proprietary software binaries, thus proprietors benefit by continued secrecy where those who have always published complete corresponding source code get to watch their work become contributions to proprietors. This, in turn, pushes more hackers to wonder why they should contribute to proprietors as if they were charities and decide to publish only proprietary programs.
We need a copyright policy that divulges the complete corresponding source code of proprietary software upon entry into the public domain. Stallman has proposed a way to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad your users don't have the same freedoms you enjoy. You're right—software freedom is the way to go. Sharing and improving, truly controlling one's own computer and the social solidarity that gives rise to is the single most important reason why nobody should use proprietary software. Including yours.
There's no question about DRM -- DRM requires proprietary software which does subjugates a user's freedom to read by giving that freedom away to publishers and their agents. The fix is free software: a free software eBook reader would give users control over their electronic copies of works. This outweighs all the alleged advantages of eBook readers because it means the ability to control what we're allowed to read with that device.
You won't truly understand what's going on until you examine the system. You cannot explain why big business loves software patents even if they lose a patent lawsuit here and there.
Microsoft and many other large corporations (particularly IBM which holds the most patents) will never "admit that software patents are just plain bad" because software patents are not bad for them. Software patents pay off very well for them in the long run. Software patents don't benefit society for a variety of reasons which Richard Stallman has expertly gone into in his patent talks. Software patents don't benefit you or me specifically: we are liable to lose a patent infringement lawsuit; ask patent holder Paul Heckel how he was able to get money from Apple in 1990 by threatening to sue Apple's users for infringing a couple of his patents which, according to Heckel's lawyer, read on something Apple was doing in Hypercard. But big businesses benefit and one big business can come close to quantifying that benefit.
As bad as you find patent payoffs to be, that's not the half of it. Cross-licensing patents is worth more and is far more revealing about how patents don't (in the propagandist language lawyers use) "protect" anyone. In IBM's magazine "Think", #5 from 1990, IBM told us how much more patent cross-licensing is worth to them: 10X more. Quoting from a talk Richard Stallman gave about the problem with software patents:
This is why IBM recently filed a friend of the court brief which makes no serious dent in the ability to obtain and use software patents. This is why they don't want the patent system to flatly reject ideas expressed as algorithms in computer software as some other areas of endeavor are simply unpatentable. IBM is the king of the hill. And as the US foists its patent regime on other countries through trade agreements (under duress, no doubt), IBM will be there cheering them on.
So if you don't see that it is the system that needs to be corrected, if you want to go on with "Fuck Eolas"; if you believe that the players in that system are somehow going to turn around and see things your way without any compelling reason to do so, you will find it difficult to understand how to properly reign in the power big business and make big businesses the subordinate of citizens as they ought to be. And to think, this is the easy issue to get right: software patents aren't even a life and death issue like other patents are (we have yet to see the full flower of the ramifications of the Chakrabarty decision which made it possible to patent a living organism, for example), like other corporate-driven/anti-citizen policies are.
I don't care about the publishers' interests. They don't look out for the public's interest (as even a cursory examination of recent copyright law shows) and it's not my job to look out for the publishers' interests. Responding as that loaded question would have us respond respects the framing of the issue as if this should hinge on publisher involvement or approval. Time to take the reins from corporatocracy and define more things to be too important to leave to the market.
Then there's no reason not to support the bill. But more along the lines of your undefended assertion: What's your evidence? I need to see what figures you use to arrive at the conclusion quoted above.
As a matter of principle, I don't see why I should care if people seek other funding sources. As a matter of fact, I find it hard to believe that there will be no takers for public money conditioned on releasing in a manner in line with public use. After all, if we taxpayers paid for the book we should collectively own that work and that means releasing that work to us all under terms that allow sharing, modification, and distribution without royalty. Many government publications already come to us this way and people seem to be okay with continuing to write them.
So? And there's nothing that says one won't be paid to write such books. Just that one won't retain copyright to said book and be able to control its distribution for as long as copyright allows.
Dirac strikes me as another codec worth following. It's available to all developers, high-quality, and in production use by the BBC during the Olympics (they said so in their Dirac promotional video). VLC has support for playing back Dirac streams. I'd guessing other players do as well.
I expect Theora and Dirac to be of interest to all who want high-quality free video codecs.
If that's the case, it is all the more reason why we need free software to do these jobs.
After re-reading TomTom's language, I have one small correction to offer: the phrase "claim with respect to OpenLR" wasn't accounted for in my made-up examples which made my penultimate paragraph less clear than I would have hoped. So putting my poor examples aside the underlying problem remains: TomTom is trying to add an additional restriction that means one could lose their ability to use the software as the GPL would otherwise allow. Additional restrictions are not allowed under the GPL. I think it's reasonable for one to defend their rights under law (including defending against TomTom for OpenLR-related violations) and maintain their rights under the GPL at the same time. I'm guessing TomTom disagrees.
It's relevant because of the attempt to choose GPLv2. If the contribution were under the GPLv2 as the /. submitter wrote, users would not enjoy the same freedom from patent harm as they would under GPLv3. As the FSF points out,
Other consequences that should pique user's interests are consequences of a GPLv2-only licensing: users will not enjoy other GPL improvements such as the more lenient attitude toward license violation found in GPLv3. GPLv2 cuts off a violators rights immediately and irrevocably upon violation. The violator has to beg the copyright holder(s) to restore the rights they had under the GPL. This is the case in most other free software licenses as well. Not so under GPLv3:
What should also concern users (and what makes OpenLR unsuitable for any use) is the additional term TomTom tries to add on to their use of the GPLv2:
This clause would, for example, prohibit me from enforcing my patents, trademarks, mask rights, copyrights, or any of the other rights subsumed under the horribly unclear term "intellectual property" without losing my rights under the GPLv2 for OpenLR. Perhaps TomTom has a popcorn maker in their lobby for which I hold a patent and TomTom is using that popcorn maker without licensing my patent. Perhaps TomTom is diluting a trademark I own. Perhaps TomTom is playing music in their building copyrighted to me and I haven't granted them permission for playing that copyrighted recording. Defending any of these violations means I automatically lose my license on OpenLR and this could prevent me from using software which depends on that license. This is an additional requirement on top of the GPL, and the GPL prohibits it. So as far as I'm concerned, OpenLR isn't licensed to anyone at all under GPL despite TomTom's intentions to the contrary.
As the FSF once said of Apple, I say of TomTom: TomTom's action is an example of the effects of the "open source" movement: of its plan to appeal to busine
Yes, how dare the FSF argue for user's freedom from DRM, freedom to cooperate with their fellows, and make their computer do what they want it to do rather than work within some proprietor's goals. And when the FSF sues someone for copyright infringement demanding compliance with the license followed by restoring the license to share that's just like the RIAA! Talk about bizarre proclamations, take a look at your own post.
The Apple Public Source License version 1 is an example of an OSI-approved license which is not a free software license. In fact, the APSL 1.x licenses remain a good example of the difference between "open source" and "free software". The differences between the movements put the lie to the use of the term "FOSS" when that term is used to smooth over these differences as if they didn't matter (like the /. headline does on this story). As the FSF said when APSL 1.x was current:
APSL v2.0 is a free software license with two major practical problems; so it's not recommended to release new software under APSLv2.0. There are other licenses that are OSI-approved and non-free. Such licenses exist even if there aren't many of them.
You used the past tense. Therefore I see that you've already made the decision to do this and have executed on that decision. The agreements are signed and the admins are working on managing your systems as I write this. A lot follows from this having already gone down. In other words, this detail important to clear up before proceeding because there is a large difference between something you have not yet done and something you have already done and now have to live with.
Of course they all do. Look at this from their perspective: many organizations hire them to do what you hired them to do. None of these IT admin firms have the staff to do things in-person (as you later contemplate threatening upon the firm you hired) where people expect explanations and instruction while they do what you hired them to do (which, by the way, makes everything take at least twice as long). If you wanted teachers to train your staff, you should have hired said teachers. If you wanted something different, you should have considered this before you contracted with them. Be here now. Best to focus on where you are now and proceed from that point realistically.
Your so-called intellectual property isn't the issue here, you've crossed that bridge. Your issue is you have post-commitment jitters about something you apparently didn't think through. Since you've already inked the deal, it's time to trust your new partners and understand that you don't have the power to "lock them out" in any way that wouldn't constitute a breach of contract or at least erecting circumstances that make them want to get rid of you as clients. You don't have the power to "make them administer the network in person so we can stand behind and watch them" nor would they likely want you to do that. You need to think ahead this time and consider the ramifications of being watched; I'm almost sure you wouldn't want to work that way because hardly anyone wants to work that way. Why would you think they'd want to work that way? You've described nothing unprofessional or bad on their part, so you have no cause to treat them as you describe.
Chalk it up to a lesson about thinking through the details before commitment.
While I can't duplicate your experience with Firefox on MacOS X taking a long time to do stuff, and I don't see tab graphics as an important issue, I do think the preferences would benefit from being native preferences instead of JS preferences.
Firefox has implemented its own preferences system in Javascript which offer some of the functionality of MacOS native preferences (admins can leave a preference alone, set a preference, or lock a preference at a given setting). Firefox preferences, however, can't be pushed down to clients via OpenDirectory (Apple's directory system) like MacOS X native preferences can. As a result, controlling large installations of MacOS X machines (which is typically done via OD) also requires setting up and deploying files which use pref() and lock_pref() to set and lock desired preferences. You need something like radmind to effectively deploy said files in an organized fashion. radmind is good at what it does, but one shouldn't have to take on a whole new distribution scheme to work around a program that doesn't use native features.
I understand that Firefox developers might not have gotten around to integrating the preferences yet. I'm guessing there are other admins who look forward to being able to deploy Firefox and control it in the same way other applications for that operating system can be controlled.
Does Camino use MacOS preferences and allow control via OD like most Mac applications? Will Camino run Firefox plugins?
Making a new name and a new logo (due to trademark restrictions) with the same sources but providing support people feel more comfortable with would be a fork of the project, just as if I were to modify some free software program and provide support for my version of that program.
I'd trust the FSF's take on this more than Wolfram's because the FSF has a long history of interpreting copyright law correctly. The relevant GNU GPL FAQ entry says:
Wolfram has no interest in user's freedoms (as should be obvious from their claims to control user's output) but the implications of this are interesting for Wolfram considering what compiler Wolfram is likely using to make GNU/Linux and MacOS X binaries. I think Wolfram is merely looking at this situation with the most restrictive interpretation not just for the user (which is enough reason to reject Wolfram's programs entirely) but with regard to which copyright holder would control what.
Unless that corporation is Wal-Mart and you need assistance with your DRM-riddled audio tracks. Or that corporation is Major League Baseball and you want continuous reliable service for your DRM-riddled videos (for which you pay a subscription fee). Or Apple and you dared to "upgrade" your iPod one too many times (in Apple's view) and Apple won't cooperate by restoring the tracks you paid for (and their software deleted). Or...
If you want reliability you want DRM-free media you can play/transcode as you need, and you need insulation from any single source of support. That insulation comes from the freedoms of free software. CentOS might be forked into something compatible one can transition into later because people with the technical skill and time to deliver a new compatible GNU/Linux distribution.
Funny how when the reality of DRM sets in, it's hard to find supporters of DRM (like Linus Torvalds who doesn't mind Tivoization and objects to the GPLv3 which defeats Tivoization) advocating for less user freedom. The right to read isn't looking so weird anymore (for some, that story was always underrated wisdom).
Please keep this in mind when you next read some open source advocate tell you about how improved developmental methodology, quality of code, or time to market are better metrics for measuring the value of technology. Community, social solidarity, and a steady defense of our freedoms are clearly a better path.
In previous copyright infringement cases in the US and abroad things just aren't that simple. American movie studios tried to argue that the VCR was helping people commit copyright infringement. Prior to The Pirate Bay's trial, The Pirate Bay's servers were stolen in what The Pirate Bay maintains was a joint effort of US government (at the behest of the American movie makers) and the Swedish government. This got Swedes riled, as I understand it, because there's no good reason why Swedes should have to satisfy American movie corporations in their copyright regime (should they choose to have a copyright regime at all). The RIAA is not to be trusted in court. Their history includes threatening the wrong people such as the 2003 threat against Penn State's Prof. Usher who, with his team of researchers, innocently recorded a song in celebration of their new telescope. How did they get caught in the RIAA's all-too-blind dragnet? Apparently they dared to store an MP3 file containing the strings "usher" and ".mp3" in the filename on a publicly-accessible FTP server and nobody at RIAA thought to listen to the file before launching into litigation threats. In 2007, the MPAA committed copyright infringement in their GNU/Linux distribution aimed at making university IT personnel spies on behalf of the MPAA. The MPAA famously illicitly copied the documentary "This Movie Not Yet Rated", which was critical of the MPAA on multiple grounds, and tried to pass their illegal copying as though it were acceptable in the process of issuing a rating for the movie.
People are polarized about this issue because they sometimes see the needless legal suffering and hypocrisy brought by well-funded copyright maximalists and they don't want those maximalists defining the contours of copyright law alone.
Nobody forces you to use copylefted code. If you want some program's functionality under different terms, write your own code. That's the beauty of basing programming in copyright instead of patent law; you can write your own implementation (or have someone write an implementation for you) and use the power to license that code as you wish (assuming you distribute it at all). Copyleft, by the way, doesn't say anything about distributing source code. In fact there are copylefted licenses for works which have no source code. Copylefted licenses preserve certain freedoms in derivative works.
You live in a world of conflicting freedoms, as another poster has already clearly pointed out. We need to decide what we value more and then allow that at the expense of someone else's freedom to do something contrary to that. The free software movement argues for community, social solidarity, and the freedoms RMS talks about at every speech. Hence that movement frames debates in terms of those ethics and works on code licensed to preserve and defend those freedoms. And like most computer programmers world-wide they resort to modifying source code to get their work done.
While I wouldn't frame that as "closed" as I'm not an advocate of the open source movement, I don't understand how any proprietor stands to gain little or nothing from having unhindered access to the wealth of free and open source software out there. Nor do I understand what the parenthetical remark means; clauses in any copyright license would be unenforcible via copyright law when that program goes into the public domain. We can already see proprietary programs with time bombs; programs that are written to behave radically differently depending on when the program is run. Some very expensive commercial proprietary programs rely on such schemes to compel their users to pay for a later version of the same proprietary program (SPSS, for instance; fortunately in this case hackers are working on a free replacement called PSPP).
Modifying binaries is so difficult that virtually nobody does it. You're arguing a corner case at best. And one cannot have freedoms without restrictions because some freedoms conflict. Copyleft is a mechanism that protects for derivative works the freedoms one gets with the copyrighted work, the very freedoms you're eschewing.
Most of what you said is non-sequitur but here you touch on a cogent response. Falkvinge's proposal adversely affects all copyleft licenses when compared to any proprietary license. RMS talks about the inequity in terms of how it affects the GPL but he's not requesting any special treatment for the GPL. His favored proposal (escrowing source code) would apply to any program under copyright. I don't know what part of "I could support a law that would make GPL-covered software's source code available in the public domain after 5 years, provided it has the same effect on proprietary software's source code." you missed, but that seems quite clear to me. If RMS is asking for anything special it's for all free software, not GPL'd software.
No, it's a lie that not even Torvalds believes.
In 2005 Torvalds chose the politics of siding with Bitkeeper proprietor Larry McVoy over fellow coder Andrew Tridgell when Tridgell dared to write an interoperating program that was compatible with Bitkeeper API. Tridgell had figured out that by telneting to a Bitkeeper repository server and typing "help" he could get a list of relevant commands. Torvalds took McVoy's side saying Tridgell "screwed people over" blaming Tridgell for somehow causing McVoy to no longer allow Torvalds to use the proprietary software source code manager (as opposed to recognizing that as McVoy's choice as it was). Torvalds' arguments against software freedom come off badly for multiple reasons including how often Linux kernel hackers leverage their software freedom to continue improving that kernel. In this case where Microsoft contributes Linux code, it seems prudent to consider if a self-declared enemy of FLOSS would contribute a trojan horse to a prominent program. But this is not a consideration one can take if one views code only in terms of code quality and developmental efficiency. Given how much proprietary software is in Torvalds' fork of the Linux kernel (I'm sure the Linux-libre project can tell you all the details) it seems clear that Torvalds is not as concerned with licenses as the /. quote would indicate. Nor is Torvalds apparently concerned with his users' freedom to know what code is in that fork of Linux.
The phrase "technology over politics" is also a naive position to take: it tries to frame technology and politics as non-overlapping things. In the real world no collaboration is free of politics, that includes technological collaboration. The reason the open source movement exists is because its founders wanted to break away from the older free software movement over a disagreement on politics. The open source movement argues for a technocratic developmental method aimed primarily at benefiting businesses, while the free software movement fights for social solidarity, community, and specific freedoms for all computer users.
Generally, Torvalds gets way more press than he deserves on politics. His views on the proper approach to solving certain problems with the Linux kernel might be well worth one's time to understand and abide by (particularly if one wishes to get their code into his fork of the Linux kernel). But his views in computer-related politics are so often wrong (either in framing the issue or in the side he takes) one wonders why anyone would bother to give him such heed.
I remain unconvinced that non-free software should be eligible for copyright without registering complete corresponding source code with the government upon publication of the proprietary binary. Thus said source code can be released when the program enters the public domain upon copyright expiration. If it turns out that the escrowed source code can't be compiled to produce the released binary that's fraud and the former copyright holder is liable to lose in court in multiple ways: one for the fraudulent escrowed source code and with each litigation from defendants suing to get back their money from suffering the effect of unjustifiably losing copyright infringement cases (the proprietor never had a legitimate copyright, so the defendant should not have lost).
The key to Stallman's essay (which builds on his discussion of this topic dating back to at least 2007 where he gave a talk in Sweden and raised this problem) isn't really about the term of copyright, a subject which seems to be occupying much of the remarkably narrow /. discussion. And talking about "really old versions" doesn't address the inequity Stallman raises, so you're not quite getting the point either. The key to Stallman's essay here is about treating former copyright holders fairly under the new copyright regime by recognizing that proprietors need to contribute to society too. If proprietors benefit from continuing to hoard what they should have published (proprietary software) while others contribute far more to society by publishing something people can build upon (free software) the new copyright regime is biased toward proprietors and should be fixed.
I have yet to hear Rickard Falkvinge adequately address this inequity in his planned copyright policy. I watched a Google talk where he responded to someone who asked about this inequity but his response (about 50 minutes into the recording) did not actually address the problem and the questioner didn't seem to see how Falkvinge dodged the question:
So, response #1 is essentially that increasing the PD means more than treating those who benefit society fairly. This is ridiculous and unconscionable but (as Stallman points out) fixable. Response #2 is that he believes state purchasing decisions will counteract the fact that proprietors will be able to incorporate copylefted free software into their programs while contributing nothing, not even their own software's source code. If proprietors "aren't doing society any favors at all" then they should not benefit as Falkvinge acknowledges they would. I fail to see how Falkvinge's response here is in any way
Try reading the article next time, particularly the part about how you can't modify proprietary software binaries, thus proprietors benefit by continued secrecy where those who have always published complete corresponding source code get to watch their work become contributions to proprietors. This, in turn, pushes more hackers to wonder why they should contribute to proprietors as if they were charities and decide to publish only proprietary programs.
We need a copyright policy that divulges the complete corresponding source code of proprietary software upon entry into the public domain. Stallman has proposed a way to do that.