One thing that has always puzzled me since the OSS-FS "divorce", was the insistence by GNU that the benefits of Free Software must be hushed up, hidden away and never referred to.
Precisely where in GNU did you see this? I have a GNU system installed on my computer and I'd like to know where this is. If instead you meant the GNU website, please point me to a specific source so I can confirm your finding.
Given how they do business, you don't need to have experienced problems with PayPal to have a valid complaint about PayPal. PayPal is a pyramid scheme. Your credit card protections are gone for the second leg (PayPal->recipient) leg of every PayPal transaction. Ethical businesspeople do not encourage customers to enter pyramid schemes or lose credit card protection when doing business with a credit card.
If you don't understand the implications of these shortcomings, the history of pyramid schemes suggests it will only be a matter of time until you are forced to learn the hard way.
Great you would think, grab that IP for a song and get going.
My first (perhaps incorrect) thought in this case would be to treat that work as public domain. This includes making a sequel game to it. With no copyright, patent, or trademark holder, nobody would have standing to sue for infringement. Even if the copyright, patent, or trademark holder was a member of some representative organization, that doesn't give the organization the ability to enforce rights they don't have, as you say elsewhere in your post.
But if someone held the rights to the work, I would not expect to be able to buy them "for a song"—people become greedy when they learn someone is interested in something they have. They learn the thing they are holding has value and thus immediately begin scheming to increase its value.
It only has games/apps that were formally released as abandonware.
Software is never "formally released as abandonware" because "abandonware" has no legal meaning. Copyright holders can allow the work to enter the public domain normally, place their work into the public domain before the copyright expires, or relicense the work to allow greater access. One reason to do the latter is so others can enjoy the freedoms of distribution, improvement and unrestricted use. Hence, one might choose to relicense under the GNU GPL as iD has done with some of its software.
This lack of legal status is one of the big points about "abandonware". Another/. thread had an interesting discussion about reformulating copyright to formally include abandoned works.
This assumes we need to convince them. It would be far preferable to compel the corporations to a shorter copyright and a reasonable use of patent (i.e., one that does not include software), among other things.
For those of you about to respond along the lines of "But they have so much money and influence it would be practical to convert them", I suggest you will never be able to convert them until they have found another way to subvert your freedom; you will never convert them. Don't place such a high value on practical considerations that you forgo your freedom. I suggest reading this RMS interview where (towards the end) he gets into valuing the practical too much.
Re:documentation that doesn't reflect customizatio
on
Computing Pet Peeves?
·
· Score: 1
I agree, but good luck getting people to see the wisdom of referring to the mouse's "menu button" or "selection button" (or somesuch) instead of "right button" and "left button". I try to write documentation that applies to lefties as well as righties and sometimes I encounter righties who aren't interested in documentation that makes them think about tying the functionality to the button (instead of the physical orientation of the buttons relative to their body). In other words, some righties want the docs to assume all mouse users are righties just because most are (just like your documentation complaint assumes everyone's using the default keymapping just because most users don't alter defaults).
Provide a man-type page for the executables and their options.
Yes. I can not stress this enough. On Unix manpages are the norm for application documentation. Not (tex)info pages, not webpages, not plain text files, not ChangeLogs, not undocumented source code. If your app doesn't have proper documentation, your app isn't finished being written.
I hate hypertext docs.
Integrate your software into the system smoothly
on
Computing Pet Peeves?
·
· Score: 1
You don't need it (unless you use the color matching, etc. that it enables)
I apologize to WhyCause because this is not a genuine response to that article, but WhyCause's phrasing was just too good to pass up.
If the software you're writing has a new feature, integrate it into the existing system-provided way of doing that thing rather than making a whole new program or UI panel for your own stuff. For instance, if your program allows the user to have a brand new resolution for their screen (say, 649x485), add that resolution to the resolution list the system provides rather than making a new UI panel to ask "Turn on 649x485 display?".
Integration need not squelch innovation. Take pains to make it easier for the user to access new functionality through UIs they are already familiar with.
Same for me with Java(script), ActiveX, and any other such thing (this list does not include https—https is often a valid choice). Most sites don't need the Javascript they employ. Most sites don't need graphics at all. Most sites don't validate their markup. Most sites use markup to suggest layout (rather than using CSS). This is why I browse with textual browsers (links and lynx) whenever I can. When I can't, I use Mozilla with Java and Javascript turned off. I avoid a lot of hassle and insecure Java(script) implementations all at the same time. If I can't access the site, there's a good chance another better site will give me the functionality or data I'm looking for.
An application shouldn't need an install program... you should be able to copy the files to a new folder, and the first time it runs, it should just work... no registry crap, etc.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "no registry crap" but since you insist on a Microsoft Windows-centric list of peeves, it's worth noting that the registry is the currently preferred place to store per-user configuration data. ".ini" files are outmoded by the registry. As another/. poster noted, don't forget that multi-user MS Windows installations are becoming the norm (Windows 2000 and XP are used a lot now). Single-user Windows systems (all DOS-based Windows, Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME) will become the exception and eventually be outmoded too (as many MS Windows versions on that list already are).
No matter what the operating system, I fully expect applications to heed the accepted norms for the operating system it's running on—on MS Windows that includes using the registry where needed (not flat files of configuration data). On Unix systems that means using rc files or (if the app has a lot of state to maintain between sessions).appname directories in the user's homedir with an rc file inside that dir.
App developers that violate the UI norm are almost always wrong to do so. The user suffers because an exception to the rule is created which makes the app harder to use in a way that scales up. It might be a pain supporting multiple schemes for saving per-user config data, but that's just part of being a cross-platform application developer.
How does that improve things? It still has been [unavailable] to the public, still abandoned.
The concept of abandonment being discussed here doesn't make sense where one is talking about unpublished works. With unpublished work the only people who have access to the work (the discarded photos, in the photography example) are people you can trust. These are people who have a market incentive to not distribute works they don't hold the copyright to because their livelihood depends on it. Also, keep in mind who holds the copyright to the work and who doesn't. The issue for distributing work you don't hold the copyright to doesn't change—if this point needs to be driven home to employees or co-workers, make a contract. In the end, the public isn't being deprived of the discarded photos under the new regime because they never had access to the discarded photos in the first place (you can't lose what you never had).
You can barely trust the places that are out there now with copyright to help you...
Correct—one has always has the issue of trust to deal with. This new copyright law (which we're assuming would replace extant copyright law) would not change that. Hence I said this doesn't strike me as an issue to be solved with copyright but with trust. One way of handling this is to create a market where the agreement for development includes notification telling the customer the photo developers will not distribute your photos unless required to by law (i.e., someone subpoenas your photos because they are evidence of a crime). But under the old or new copyright regime the photo developers have no right to keep or distribute your photos, hence there is no problem brought on by the new copyright regime that copyright law needs to be account for.
...without it you have a huge problem...
Nobody said you would lose all copyright power. The issue is whether this new copyright power grants untrusted workers authority to distribute your photos against your copyright. It does not. You still have a copyright on the work from the moment you create it (whether you publish it or not), just like you probably do now (I don't know where you live but this applies to Berne signatory countries).
Self-developing would be fine, if we all liked B&W film and had a decent light tight changing bag and another $100 worth of crap.
It is not the job of copyright to guarantee access to high-quality developing or professional-grade equipment. The new copyright system being discussed here maintains the exact same exchange you have to make now regarding whom you can trust, how much you can spend and what quality you desire as output. Those choices have always been and remain yours to make.
So because we strip copyright from non-published works (well after ten years)...
Nobody said we were doing that. We are making the same argument that exists today—unpublished work doesn't have the same copyright enforcement issues as published work does. You still have a copyright on things you set in a permanent form just as you do now. The length of copyright and the ease with which works enter the public domain is at issue (but it seems we all largely agree on a 20 year non-renewable copyright term and a policy for opt-out abandonment).
You didn't cover game balance issues in things like Magic [which are purposefully produced in limited runs to artificially maintain high market value].
I see this as Magic's business choice. The public should not lose access to Magic's cards because Magic's business model is based on limited runs. Magic's choice in distributing their cards this way merely compels them to distribute a new card set by the time the abandonment clause kicks on the old set so they'll continue to be in business. This gets at the point of the entire copyright system—giving copyright holders limited monopoly power in exchange for more published work. There's nothing stopping Magic from reissuing the same cards just before abandonment would occur (thus forstalling entry into the public domain until the copyright term expires). Again, this (and other silly business models) is not an problem for copyright.
For example if we made abandonment apply only to non-limited run mass market items...
No, that creates loopholes that didn't exist before. Determining what qualifies as "mass market" and "non-limited" are bound to be arbitrary, difficult for individuals and small companies to reach, hard to understand, and easily worked around. I think no matter what rationale you apply you'll find only large companies would be able to stop distributing copyrighted work but somehow not lose exclusive control under abandonment. For the sake of fairness we can't afford to have effectively different rules governing corporate and private copyright power.
Under your scheme the "almost perfect" shots not being available to the public have been abandoned, and after ten years anyone can use them.
So, if I understand your argument correctly, you're saying access to the discarded photos devalue the best shot because the discards (regardless of number) are sufficiently close to the best shot. You fear this means in 10 years people won't want to pay for the good shot when they can get a 'close enough' discard for much less money.
Assuming I have that correctly (a shortcoming of discussing something in this fashion, I'm not trying to railroad you into defending against my incorrect interpretation) I can think of an easy way to allay your fears: don't publish the discards until the copyright term on the published shot (and thus its exclusive market) has expired.
Or in a less commercial realm, what if you take pictures of your wife or girlfriend that you (and she!) don't want anyone else to have?
Then don't get them developed at a place you can't trust to honor your wishes. Self-developing film is a great way to accomplish this. This scenario doesn't strike me as a copyright issue because people who make these kinds of photos (hello Laura Schlessinger!) don't want them published at all regardless of when the copyright on them expires.
But there are ways to address both copyright and privacy concerns: use a film you control completely: digital cameras are quickly entering the norm, self-developing physical film like the older "Big Swinger" camera film or more modern color Polaroid camera film have decades of acceptability behind them.
This abandonment provision may have problems but I don't think the particular counterarguments you've raised convince me that abandonment provisions are a bad idea.
I admit I like the abandonment idea because I wouldn't want to deprive the public of works the publisher has chosen to let 'go out of print' (or go out of publication, regardless of medium).
I think the core of Eldred's case should focus not on Mickey Mouse, because as Valenti said, who cares if Mikey isn't in the public domain for another 1000 years.
I don't know who cares beyond me, but lots of people should care. There's no way anyone can determine Mickey Mouse's worth to society a priori as Valenti stated.
I totally agree with you for the majority of your post—copyright should not last so long that we lose access to the work even when it enters the public domain—but I think it is equally important to understand that we cannot determine the value of a work to everyone at all times in the future. This is another reason why the fight for reduced copyright power should include early works starring Mickey Mouse.
It's a shame you choose to introduce yourself by childish taunts. I thought there was a chance for interesting conversation here, perhaps I was wrong.
Free Software and Open Source aren't defined by which copyright is preferred...
I'm not sure what other copyright you're referring to. Actually, the open source movement and free software movement are different movements because they follow different philosophies that compel recommending different licenses.
...but by philosophy. The Free Software folks think it's inherently evil to make a buck (or a living) off of the software that *you* write,
The movements are different philosophically, true. You're completely wrong about selling free software, however. Selling free software can be okay, regardless of who wrote the free software. The FSF encourages us to charge as much money as the market will bear for distributing free software. This is because the 'free' in free software doesn't refer to price. So it would be wrong to tell people that free software distributors cannot charge money; charging money for free software distribution is a golden opportunity to make a living (one which RMS has done in the past and the FSF does now). Don't miss out on the chance to make money (or a living)—sell free software.
The article is nice but I wish they'd learn the difference between the Open Source Movement and the Free Software Movement. The Free Software Movement is what RMS started in 1984, what is properly associated with copyleft and what should be mentioned so frequently in NewScientist's article. Open Source advocates are, ironically enough, anxious to avoid talking about freedom and ethics. The Open Source Movement encourages you to license your copyrighted software under the new BSD license or another license that essentially makes your software a gift to business. It's the older Free Software Movement that stresses greater societal software rights, using a copylefted free software license (such as the GNU GPL) so derivatives of your work can't be made non-free.
Actually we know exactly how ad-aware works. It removes the entries for the programs from the registry and deletes the programs. What it's doing is not hidden, it is quite obvious.
Who is we? Certainly not the Ad-Aware using public, which is what the previous poster addressed. An interface that tells you a bunch of stuff could still be doing something you don't know about. Put bluntly, there is no substitute for having source code.
...and that would fit pretty well with the anticorporate overtones of free software.
It's unfair of you to leave a plainly incorrect barb like that undefended. As a class of license, free software licenses have no anti-corporate overtones and the free software movement does not promote anti-corporate behavior or ethics. That is a myth promulgated by anti-free software advocates and those that don't fully understand the value of the freedom in free software. Free software is available for everyone to improve and share. In fact some licenses listed as free software licenses by the FSF are purposefully not interested in compelling improvements to be shared in a form anyone can run, modify, and redistribute. The existance of these non-copylefted licenses does not imply that copylefted licenses are "anticorporate" (not that being against what a particular corporation does is always bad, either).
The free software movement does not discriminate against corporations. IBM (advertises IBM computers running "Linux"), Apple (whose MacOS X is based on BSD sources, MacOS X comes with some GNU software), Microsoft (whose network stack and ftp CLI program, came from BSD), and others are corporate vendors that choose to use free software. They may not all share the ethic of 'share and share alike', but a lot of companies do use free software.
Slashdot Mirror
Precisely where in GNU did you see this? I have a GNU system installed on my computer and I'd like to know where this is. If instead you meant the GNU website, please point me to a specific source so I can confirm your finding.
Given how they do business, you don't need to have experienced problems with PayPal to have a valid complaint about PayPal. PayPal is a pyramid scheme. Your credit card protections are gone for the second leg (PayPal->recipient) leg of every PayPal transaction. Ethical businesspeople do not encourage customers to enter pyramid schemes or lose credit card protection when doing business with a credit card.
If you don't understand the implications of these shortcomings, the history of pyramid schemes suggests it will only be a matter of time until you are forced to learn the hard way.
Software is never "formally released as abandonware" because "abandonware" has no legal meaning. Copyright holders can allow the work to enter the public domain normally, place their work into the public domain before the copyright expires, or relicense the work to allow greater access. One reason to do the latter is so others can enjoy the freedoms of distribution, improvement and unrestricted use. Hence, one might choose to relicense under the GNU GPL as iD has done with some of its software.
This lack of legal status is one of the big points about "abandonware". Another /. thread had an interesting discussion about reformulating copyright to formally include abandoned works.
This assumes we need to convince them. It would be far preferable to compel the corporations to a shorter copyright and a reasonable use of patent (i.e., one that does not include software), among other things.
For those of you about to respond along the lines of "But they have so much money and influence it would be practical to convert them", I suggest you will never be able to convert them until they have found another way to subvert your freedom; you will never convert them. Don't place such a high value on practical considerations that you forgo your freedom. I suggest reading this RMS interview where (towards the end) he gets into valuing the practical too much.
I agree, but good luck getting people to see the wisdom of referring to the mouse's "menu button" or "selection button" (or somesuch) instead of "right button" and "left button". I try to write documentation that applies to lefties as well as righties and sometimes I encounter righties who aren't interested in documentation that makes them think about tying the functionality to the button (instead of the physical orientation of the buttons relative to their body). In other words, some righties want the docs to assume all mouse users are righties just because most are (just like your documentation complaint assumes everyone's using the default keymapping just because most users don't alter defaults).
Yes. I can not stress this enough. On Unix manpages are the norm for application documentation. Not (tex)info pages, not webpages, not plain text files, not ChangeLogs, not undocumented source code. If your app doesn't have proper documentation, your app isn't finished being written.
I hate hypertext docs.
I apologize to WhyCause because this is not a genuine response to that article, but WhyCause's phrasing was just too good to pass up.
If the software you're writing has a new feature, integrate it into the existing system-provided way of doing that thing rather than making a whole new program or UI panel for your own stuff. For instance, if your program allows the user to have a brand new resolution for their screen (say, 649x485), add that resolution to the resolution list the system provides rather than making a new UI panel to ask "Turn on 649x485 display?".
Integration need not squelch innovation. Take pains to make it easier for the user to access new functionality through UIs they are already familiar with.
Same for me with Java(script), ActiveX, and any other such thing (this list does not include https—https is often a valid choice). Most sites don't need the Javascript they employ. Most sites don't need graphics at all. Most sites don't validate their markup. Most sites use markup to suggest layout (rather than using CSS). This is why I browse with textual browsers (links and lynx) whenever I can. When I can't, I use Mozilla with Java and Javascript turned off. I avoid a lot of hassle and insecure Java(script) implementations all at the same time. If I can't access the site, there's a good chance another better site will give me the functionality or data I'm looking for.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "no registry crap" but since you insist on a Microsoft Windows-centric list of peeves, it's worth noting that the registry is the currently preferred place to store per-user configuration data. ".ini" files are outmoded by the registry. As another /. poster noted, don't forget that multi-user MS Windows installations are becoming the norm (Windows 2000 and XP are used a lot now). Single-user Windows systems (all DOS-based Windows, Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME) will become the exception and eventually be outmoded too (as many MS Windows versions on that list already are).
No matter what the operating system, I fully expect applications to heed the accepted norms for the operating system it's running on—on MS Windows that includes using the registry where needed (not flat files of configuration data). On Unix systems that means using rc files or (if the app has a lot of state to maintain between sessions) .appname directories in the user's homedir with an rc file inside that dir.
App developers that violate the UI norm are almost always wrong to do so. The user suffers because an exception to the rule is created which makes the app harder to use in a way that scales up. It might be a pain supporting multiple schemes for saving per-user config data, but that's just part of being a cross-platform application developer.
The concept of abandonment being discussed here doesn't make sense where one is talking about unpublished works. With unpublished work the only people who have access to the work (the discarded photos, in the photography example) are people you can trust. These are people who have a market incentive to not distribute works they don't hold the copyright to because their livelihood depends on it. Also, keep in mind who holds the copyright to the work and who doesn't. The issue for distributing work you don't hold the copyright to doesn't change—if this point needs to be driven home to employees or co-workers, make a contract. In the end, the public isn't being deprived of the discarded photos under the new regime because they never had access to the discarded photos in the first place (you can't lose what you never had).
Correct—one has always has the issue of trust to deal with. This new copyright law (which we're assuming would replace extant copyright law) would not change that. Hence I said this doesn't strike me as an issue to be solved with copyright but with trust. One way of handling this is to create a market where the agreement for development includes notification telling the customer the photo developers will not distribute your photos unless required to by law (i.e., someone subpoenas your photos because they are evidence of a crime). But under the old or new copyright regime the photo developers have no right to keep or distribute your photos, hence there is no problem brought on by the new copyright regime that copyright law needs to be account for.
Nobody said you would lose all copyright power. The issue is whether this new copyright power grants untrusted workers authority to distribute your photos against your copyright. It does not. You still have a copyright on the work from the moment you create it (whether you publish it or not), just like you probably do now (I don't know where you live but this applies to Berne signatory countries).
It is not the job of copyright to guarantee access to high-quality developing or professional-grade equipment. The new copyright system being discussed here maintains the exact same exchange you have to make now regarding whom you can trust, how much you can spend and what quality you desire as output. Those choices have always been and remain yours to make.
Nobody said we were doing that. We are making the same argument that exists today—unpublished work doesn't have the same copyright enforcement issues as published work does. You still have a copyright on things you set in a permanent form just as you do now. The length of copyright and the ease with which works enter the public domain is at issue (but it seems we all largely agree on a 20 year non-renewable copyright term and a policy for opt-out abandonment).
I see this as Magic's business choice. The public should not lose access to Magic's cards because Magic's business model is based on limited runs. Magic's choice in distributing their cards this way merely compels them to distribute a new card set by the time the abandonment clause kicks on the old set so they'll continue to be in business. This gets at the point of the entire copyright system—giving copyright holders limited monopoly power in exchange for more published work. There's nothing stopping Magic from reissuing the same cards just before abandonment would occur (thus forstalling entry into the public domain until the copyright term expires). Again, this (and other silly business models) is not an problem for copyright.
No, that creates loopholes that didn't exist before. Determining what qualifies as "mass market" and "non-limited" are bound to be arbitrary, difficult for individuals and small companies to reach, hard to understand, and easily worked around. I think no matter what rationale you apply you'll find only large companies would be able to stop distributing copyrighted work but somehow not lose exclusive control under abandonment. For the sake of fairness we can't afford to have effectively different rules governing corporate and private copyright power.
So, if I understand your argument correctly, you're saying access to the discarded photos devalue the best shot because the discards (regardless of number) are sufficiently close to the best shot. You fear this means in 10 years people won't want to pay for the good shot when they can get a 'close enough' discard for much less money.
Assuming I have that correctly (a shortcoming of discussing something in this fashion, I'm not trying to railroad you into defending against my incorrect interpretation) I can think of an easy way to allay your fears: don't publish the discards until the copyright term on the published shot (and thus its exclusive market) has expired.
Then don't get them developed at a place you can't trust to honor your wishes. Self-developing film is a great way to accomplish this. This scenario doesn't strike me as a copyright issue because people who make these kinds of photos (hello Laura Schlessinger!) don't want them published at all regardless of when the copyright on them expires.
But there are ways to address both copyright and privacy concerns: use a film you control completely: digital cameras are quickly entering the norm, self-developing physical film like the older "Big Swinger" camera film or more modern color Polaroid camera film have decades of acceptability behind them.
This abandonment provision may have problems but I don't think the particular counterarguments you've raised convince me that abandonment provisions are a bad idea.
I admit I like the abandonment idea because I wouldn't want to deprive the public of works the publisher has chosen to let 'go out of print' (or go out of publication, regardless of medium).
I don't know who cares beyond me, but lots of people should care. There's no way anyone can determine Mickey Mouse's worth to society a priori as Valenti stated.
I totally agree with you for the majority of your post—copyright should not last so long that we lose access to the work even when it enters the public domain—but I think it is equally important to understand that we cannot determine the value of a work to everyone at all times in the future. This is another reason why the fight for reduced copyright power should include early works starring Mickey Mouse.
It's a shame you choose to introduce yourself by childish taunts. I thought there was a chance for interesting conversation here, perhaps I was wrong.
I'm not sure what other copyright you're referring to. Actually, the open source movement and free software movement are different movements because they follow different philosophies that compel recommending different licenses.
The movements are different philosophically, true. You're completely wrong about selling free software, however. Selling free software can be okay, regardless of who wrote the free software. The FSF encourages us to charge as much money as the market will bear for distributing free software. This is because the 'free' in free software doesn't refer to price. So it would be wrong to tell people that free software distributors cannot charge money; charging money for free software distribution is a golden opportunity to make a living (one which RMS has done in the past and the FSF does now). Don't miss out on the chance to make money (or a living)—sell free software.
The article is nice but I wish they'd learn the difference between the Open Source Movement and the Free Software Movement. The Free Software Movement is what RMS started in 1984, what is properly associated with copyleft and what should be mentioned so frequently in NewScientist's article. Open Source advocates are, ironically enough, anxious to avoid talking about freedom and ethics. The Open Source Movement encourages you to license your copyrighted software under the new BSD license or another license that essentially makes your software a gift to business. It's the older Free Software Movement that stresses greater societal software rights, using a copylefted free software license (such as the GNU GPL) so derivatives of your work can't be made non-free.
Who is we? Certainly not the Ad-Aware using public, which is what the previous poster addressed. An interface that tells you a bunch of stuff could still be doing something you don't know about. Put bluntly, there is no substitute for having source code.
It's unfair of you to leave a plainly incorrect barb like that undefended. As a class of license, free software licenses have no anti-corporate overtones and the free software movement does not promote anti-corporate behavior or ethics. That is a myth promulgated by anti-free software advocates and those that don't fully understand the value of the freedom in free software. Free software is available for everyone to improve and share. In fact some licenses listed as free software licenses by the FSF are purposefully not interested in compelling improvements to be shared in a form anyone can run, modify, and redistribute. The existance of these non-copylefted licenses does not imply that copylefted licenses are "anticorporate" (not that being against what a particular corporation does is always bad, either).
The free software movement does not discriminate against corporations. IBM (advertises IBM computers running "Linux"), Apple (whose MacOS X is based on BSD sources, MacOS X comes with some GNU software), Microsoft (whose network stack and ftp CLI program, came from BSD), and others are corporate vendors that choose to use free software. They may not all share the ethic of 'share and share alike', but a lot of companies do use free software.