I think this is actually a nice thing because. 1. More people would become aware of the danger of patents. 2. More people would try the options of free file formats.
>how long can they continue along this path before the public demands a fundamental reform of copyright laws and intellectual property mechanisms.
As long as it goes ! This is not just the policy of RIAA, but the entire corporate america. They dont aim anything for the long term. What they aim is some quick(dirty) money by any means. Enron guys knew well that they wouldn't be able to continue it forever. But the policy was pull as much money as they can until everything collapse. RIAA is also doing the same. They know their business model is outdated and cannot continue for a long. But they just want to pull as much as possible by any dirty means. All these anti-piracy hunt is just a cover-up for these dirty practices including price fixing and collusion. By this propoganda onslaught against "piracy" they are actually aiming to avoid any enquiry from government and brainwash the public wrongly.
>if 90% of the people use the terms "incorrectly", maybe you should reconsider your own views on what is correct and what is incorrect?
Ofcourse not! Media can herd 90% of the people(or even more) in to thinking whatever they want. That doesnt mean that you should change your views to synchronize with it.
You forgot one basic thing here. Universities are not private entities. They are PUBLIC and funded by tax money. People pay tax thinking that this money would be spent for something good for the society. So any action or policy of public entities are suppos to be keeping that point in mind. Unlike private entities, public ones cant do whatever they wish like. The actions of universities are to be seen in this context. Does the restrictions they impose on the students are for their good ? I dont think so. I think its rather for the interest of someone like RIAA.
> It's well known that/. isn't particulary impartial and it's reporting is never particulary accurate. If accuracy and journalistic integrity are criteria , then how many newspapers/sources would be left to pick up? In fact slashdot is far less biased than the mainstream media in US and other countries. Atleast there are lots of posts against the "mainstream" slashdot view in any discussion. Also,what google news is looking for is not neutrality or impartiality, but popularity and relevance.
In fact even though we bitche about microsoft and bill gates, others are not much different. As Oscar wild had said, their morality is the lack of opportnity. Thus SUN, which was a "better" company showed its true color by funding sco FUD and ellison showed it with failed coup attempt against Peoplesoft. In fact, I am sure most of these companies would be the same or even worse than microsoft had they been having such a cash balance and market share.
>Why would Samba need a major re-write if the code weren't properly written in the first place? Isn't this just like a rewrite of Windows?
Softwares need routinely rewrite because the requirements are changed readiacally from time to time. New issues comes up often(major security requirement etc.)and some of the requirement becomes irrelevent as time passes(being able to run on very low hard ware also is not a requirement any more ). Above all samba is not a stand alone application. It is heavily depnedent on microsoft softwares and protocols which are changed quite often. Thus comes the need for major rewrite. What was the situation in the field of computer and software at 1991 is entirely different from what is now. Requirements and proiorities are rapidly changing.
I dont know what exactly you mean by "intelligent" person. But according to this article, even the manager of a 6 billion dollar mutual fund had placed orders for "penis enlargement pills".
NO, he cannot be called a terrorist or even anything closer to it . Because,
1. His thinking and actions are in perfect synchrony with modern capitalistic business practice of US. 2. He is not against the mainstream. 3. He is targeting something which is mostly owned by community rather than any particular big corporation. 4. His actions will help to protect the interests of some big corporations which were being threatened seriously.
>I strongly believe that if September 11th showed us anything, it was that zealots of any movement represent a huge risk to that movement because they do not consider the repercussions of their actions.
I strongly belive that if september 11th showed us anything, it was that the best way to FUD against any person or movement is calling him(them) "zealot" "terrorist" or "fanatist".
Mozilla project and Mozilla Firebird especially is a pointer to issues faced by Free softares . Its amazing that still >90% people use IE as their browser, which is technically an inferior product. It shows how difficult it is to penetrate proprietory software market even with a better product. The barrier of entry against Free softwares are formidable. They are not technical mostly. But customer lock-in, incompatibility , patented technologies(e.g plugins) and above all sheer inertia from the user side. Success and future of Free software projects like Mozilla depends on tackling these issues also rather than merely being a "superior product techically". Not that they are doing a bad job. In fact they deserve big salute for the wonderful products they have given and kudos to them. But IMHO these issues are also limiting factors in the success of these projects.
Its amazing that the author speaks so much against GPL enforcement and the FSF way of dealing with issues. How about big companies enforcing their patents ? How about demanding royalties for everything under the sun (which may be covered by some submarine patents)? How about BSA terrorizing everyone with their raids ? People like him find problem when somebody is asking to release the modifications he made to something which he has got FREE. How is it is so bad ? If companies like cisco can employ armies of lawyers to find out possible patents , why cant they hire some grad student to go through the GPL and be compliant with it beofre taking GPL code ? The level of hypocrisy is sickening !
> No legal rule is strong enough to overcome a radical technical innovation. This one sentense sums up the the fate of the RIAA crusade. Digitalization of property is a reality and has made their business model outdated. No litigation can stop the wave of changes occuring also. People would never stop sharing things they possess, ever. RIAA can either adapt themselves to this (like news paper industry) or get perished (like whip manufacturers). I wish RIAA understand what Victor Heugo had said long back , "you can stop an invading force, but you cant stop an idea whose time has come".
>This is probably one of the very few times we'd want to see Microsoft win a case like this Not me ! I want Microsoft to loose this case. If microsoft loose this case, more and more people will become aware of the danger of software patents. Nobody is going to realise the danger of software patents when a handful of Free software projects are affected. This specific case has drawn a lot of attention to the issue of software patents because its microsoft at one end. I wish more and more software lawsuits come up and more and more people become aware of this. There is nothing to be complacent when microsoft or somebody like them win a couple of lawsuits and software patents largly remain.
I beg to differ with you. Regardles of any level of education , there will be fools who will fall in to this fraud. I admit they are a microscopic minority.But that doesnt matter and spammers can keep moving with that as the per capita expense of spam is near to zero. It bas been reported that even the manager of a 6 billion dollar mutual fund had placed orders for "penis enlargement pills" (http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,59907,0 0.html).
I am sorry to tell you that you dont understand the average internet user at all. Installing any such spam filter or tool is well beyond the capability of 95% of the users atleast. Classifying mails as "spam" and "ham" and training the bayes engine and all are good for geeks, but not for the average user.Belive me for this. For him/her, these are just unacceptable solution and spammers exploit this weak point. As long as substantial chunk of users are non-geeks, spammers can flourish.And anti-spam laws are relevent in this context.
> The UN should treat them equally and fairly. No! UN is supposed to be a democratic institution and any democratic institution should promote transperancy and openness in all levels including governance. Proprietory softwares are exactly against this philosophy. They are not transperant and hence there is no point in UN treating them equal with open source.
Let me clarify my point. Have you ever heard of any back doors in any open source software ? very less(if at all any). Now, have you heard of any back doors in commercial softwares ? Many. Just compare the P2P applications itself. Many of the closed source ones were alleged to have spywayre, backdoors etc(Kazaa and now this one for example). Was there a single case of such incident in open source alternatives ? I dont think so. So my point is that, the chance to find a back door in an open source software is close to zero. But thats not the case in closed source ones. Untill and unless proven otherwise by incidents, this argument will remain valid. I will not say that open source software is panacea or anything like that . But they are inherently more OPEN and transparant. In closed source software , you are trusting a SINGLE company which is not a good idea IMHO.
This is a good example which shows again and again that any closed source is inherently not trustable. When you are installing a proprietory software, you are basically trusting them not to screw you up or put any back door. Nobody has any guaranty that windows or any other closed source software is free of this issue. Safe bet is to stick with open source software exclusively.
And the will to die, Stronger than all things strong, Is stayed by a will to live Feebler than all things feeble. Forgive me, comrade; I tarry too long. It is memory that holds my spirit; A procession of distant days, A vision of youth spent in a dream, A face that bids my eyelids not to sleep, A voice that lingers in my ears, A hand that touches my hand. Forgive me that you have waited too long. It is over now, and all is faded: The face, the voice, the hand and the mist that brought them hither. The knot is untied. The cord is cleaved.
---Khalil Gibran (From 'The Dying Man And The Vulture')
> public domain means anyone can do anything to it. No ! Public domain doesnt mean that anyone can do ANYTHING on it. Parks and roads are in pubic domain. Does it mean that you can occupy some space of it and start use it for your commercial purpose ? . Any public property has some restrictions attached to it. And these restrictions are necessary to KEEP it in the public domain. GPL is also also like that. It IS in the public domain and you can use it for anything except making it proprietory which is the same case with most of the public domain things .
Actually anybody with common sense can understand this fact. How many millions of lines of codes are there for windows and all the related software? just getting a "peep" in to this wont help you to determine whether you have back doors in it or anything for that matter. This is yet another hog wash from Microsoft. Software is not an object of voyeurism. You need to compile it and run it and look in to the source code extensively to get to know about it well. I am genuinely surprised that they got countries like China to subscribe this BS at all.
I have utmost respect with his opinion about jabber and my post was not to criticize him. All I meant was yahoo IS popular and is not inferior as far as other POPULAR protocols are concerned.I admit, I dont know the intricacies of these protocols and am talking on the user perspective. Regarding Jabber, the problem is that nobody from my contact list (or an average user for that matter) uses it and its next to impossible to convince them to use it. I personally use free (speech) software for 99.9% of my use(both work and personal). I have been stubbornly doing so for a long time also. But IM clients are a different case and we are forced to use the proprietory protocols(atleast the Free software clients of it) IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is actually a nice thing because.
1. More people would become aware of the danger of patents.
2. More people would try the options of free file formats.
>how long can they continue along this path before the public demands a fundamental reform of copyright laws and intellectual property mechanisms.
As long as it goes ! This is not just the policy of RIAA, but the entire corporate america. They dont aim anything for the long term. What they aim is some quick(dirty) money by any means. Enron guys knew well that they wouldn't be able to continue it forever. But the policy was pull as much money as they can until everything collapse. RIAA is also doing the same. They know their business model is outdated and cannot continue for a long. But they just want to pull as much as possible by any dirty means. All these anti-piracy hunt is just a cover-up for these dirty practices including price fixing and collusion. By this propoganda onslaught against "piracy" they are actually aiming to avoid any enquiry from government and brainwash the public wrongly.
>if 90% of the people use the terms "incorrectly", maybe you should reconsider your own views on what is correct and what is incorrect?
Ofcourse not! Media can herd 90% of the people(or even more) in to thinking whatever they want. That doesnt mean that you should change your views to synchronize with it.
You forgot one basic thing here. Universities are not private entities. They are PUBLIC and funded by tax money. People pay tax thinking that this money would be spent for something good for the society. So any action or policy of public entities are suppos to be keeping that point in mind. Unlike private entities, public ones cant do whatever they wish like. The actions of universities are to be seen in this context. Does the restrictions they impose on the students are for their good ? I dont think so. I think its rather for the interest of someone like RIAA.
>Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Actually it should be,
Then they came for Windows XP and there was no one left to speak out
> It's well known that /. isn't particulary impartial and it's reporting is never particulary accurate.
If accuracy and journalistic integrity are criteria , then how many newspapers/sources would be left to pick up? In fact slashdot is far less biased than the mainstream media in US and other countries. Atleast there are lots of posts against the "mainstream" slashdot view in any discussion. Also,what google news is looking for is not neutrality or impartiality, but popularity and relevance.
In fact even though we bitche about microsoft and bill gates, others are not much different. As Oscar wild had said, their morality is the lack of opportnity. Thus SUN, which was a "better" company showed its true color by funding sco FUD and ellison showed it with failed coup attempt against Peoplesoft. In fact, I am sure most of these companies would be the same or even worse than microsoft had they been having such a cash balance and market share.
>Why would Samba need a major re-write if the code weren't properly written in the first place? Isn't this just like a rewrite of Windows?
Softwares need routinely rewrite because the requirements are changed readiacally from time to time. New issues comes up often(major security requirement etc.)and some of the requirement becomes irrelevent as time passes(being able to run on very low hard ware also is not a requirement any more ). Above all samba is not a stand alone application. It is heavily depnedent on microsoft softwares and protocols which are changed quite often. Thus comes the need for major rewrite. What was the situation in the field of computer and software at 1991 is entirely different from what is now. Requirements and proiorities are rapidly changing.
I dont know what exactly you mean by "intelligent" person. But according to this article, even the manager of a 6 billion dollar mutual fund had placed orders for "penis enlargement pills".
NO, he cannot be called a terrorist or even anything closer to it . Because,
1. His thinking and actions are in perfect synchrony with modern capitalistic business practice of US.
2. He is not against the mainstream.
3. He is targeting something which is mostly owned by community rather than any particular big corporation.
4. His actions will help to protect the interests of some big corporations which were being threatened seriously.
>I strongly believe that if September 11th showed us anything, it was that zealots of any movement represent a huge risk to that movement because they do not consider the repercussions of their actions.
I strongly belive that if september 11th showed us anything, it was that the best way to FUD against any person or movement is calling him(them) "zealot" "terrorist" or "fanatist".
Mozilla project and Mozilla Firebird especially is a pointer to issues faced by Free softares . Its amazing that still >90% people use IE as their browser, which is technically an inferior product. It shows how difficult it is to penetrate proprietory software market even with a better product. The barrier of entry against Free softwares are formidable. They are not technical mostly. But customer lock-in, incompatibility , patented technologies(e.g plugins) and above all sheer inertia from the user side. Success and future of Free software projects like Mozilla depends on tackling these issues also rather than merely being a "superior product techically". Not that they are doing a bad job. In fact they deserve big salute for the wonderful products they have given and kudos to them. But IMHO these issues are also limiting factors in the success of these projects.
Its amazing that the author speaks so much against GPL enforcement and the FSF way of dealing with issues. How about big companies enforcing their patents ? How about demanding royalties for everything under the sun (which may be covered by some submarine patents)? How about BSA terrorizing everyone with their raids ? People like him find problem when somebody is asking to release the modifications he made to something which he has got FREE. How is it is so bad ? If companies like cisco can employ armies of lawyers to find out possible patents , why cant they hire some grad student to go through the GPL and be compliant with it beofre taking GPL code ? The level of hypocrisy is sickening !
> No legal rule is strong enough to overcome a radical technical innovation.
This one sentense sums up the the fate of the RIAA crusade. Digitalization of property is a reality and has made their business model outdated. No litigation can stop the wave of changes occuring also. People would never stop sharing things they possess, ever. RIAA can either adapt themselves to this (like news paper industry) or get perished (like whip manufacturers). I wish RIAA understand what Victor Heugo had said long back , "you can stop an invading force, but you cant stop an idea whose time has come".
I find the name "SUN Java Desktop" really ridiculous. Its as stupid as calling Toyota Land Cruiser "SONY SUV" for the Sony sterio system used in it.
>This is probably one of the very few times we'd want to see Microsoft win a case like this
Not me ! I want Microsoft to loose this case. If microsoft loose this case, more and more people will become aware of the danger of software patents. Nobody is going to realise the danger of software patents when a handful of Free software projects are affected. This specific case has drawn a lot of attention to the issue of software patents because its microsoft at one end. I wish more and more software lawsuits come up and more and more people become aware of this. There is nothing to be complacent when microsoft or somebody like them win a couple of lawsuits and software patents largly remain.
I beg to differ with you. Regardles of any level of education , there will be fools who will fall in to this fraud. I admit they are a microscopic minority .But that doesnt matter and spammers can keep moving with that as the per capita expense of spam is near to zero. It bas been reported that even the manager of a 6 billion dollar mutual fund had placed orders for "penis enlargement pills" (http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,59907,0 0.html).
I am sorry to tell you that you dont understand the average internet user at all. Installing any such spam filter or tool is well beyond the capability of 95% of the users atleast. Classifying mails as "spam" and "ham" and training the bayes engine and all are good for geeks, but not for the average user.Belive me for this. For him/her, these are just unacceptable solution and spammers exploit this weak point. As long as substantial chunk of users are non-geeks, spammers can flourish.And anti-spam laws are relevent in this context.
> The UN should treat them equally and fairly.
No! UN is supposed to be a democratic institution and any democratic institution should promote transperancy and openness in all levels including governance. Proprietory softwares are exactly against this philosophy. They are not transperant and hence there is no point in UN treating them equal with open source.
Let me clarify my point. Have you ever heard of any back doors in any open source software ? very less(if at all any). Now, have you heard of any back doors in commercial softwares ? Many. Just compare the P2P applications itself. Many of the closed source ones were alleged to have spywayre, backdoors etc(Kazaa and now this one for example). Was there a single case of such incident in open source alternatives ? I dont think so. So my point is that, the chance to find a back door in an open source software is close to zero. But thats not the case in closed source ones. Untill and unless proven otherwise by incidents, this argument will remain valid. I will not say that open source software is panacea or anything like that . But they are inherently more OPEN and transparant. In closed source software , you are trusting a SINGLE company which is not a good idea IMHO.
This is a good example which shows again and again that any closed source is inherently not trustable. When you are installing a proprietory software, you are basically trusting them not to screw you up or put any back door. Nobody has any guaranty that windows or any other closed source software is free of this issue. Safe bet is to stick with open source software exclusively.
And the will to die,
Stronger than all things strong,
Is stayed by a will to live
Feebler than all things feeble.
Forgive me, comrade; I tarry too long.
It is memory that holds my spirit;
A procession of distant days,
A vision of youth spent in a dream,
A face that bids my eyelids not to sleep,
A voice that lingers in my ears,
A hand that touches my hand.
Forgive me that you have waited too long.
It is over now, and all is faded:
The face, the voice, the hand and the mist that brought them hither.
The knot is untied.
The cord is cleaved.
---Khalil Gibran (From 'The Dying Man And The Vulture')
> public domain means anyone can do anything to it.
No ! Public domain doesnt mean that anyone can do ANYTHING on it. Parks and roads are in pubic domain. Does it mean that you can occupy some space of it and start use it for your commercial purpose ? . Any public property has some restrictions attached to it. And these restrictions are necessary to KEEP it in the public domain. GPL is also also like that. It IS in the public domain and you can use it for anything except making it proprietory which is the same case with most of the public domain things .
Actually anybody with common sense can understand this fact. How many millions of lines of codes are there for windows and all the related software? just getting a "peep" in to this wont help you to determine whether you have back doors in it or anything for that matter. This is yet another hog wash from Microsoft. Software is not an object of voyeurism. You need to compile it and run it and look in to the source code extensively to get to know about it well. I am genuinely surprised that they got countries like China to subscribe this BS at all.
I have utmost respect with his opinion about jabber and my post was not to criticize him. All I meant was yahoo IS popular and is not inferior as far as other POPULAR protocols are concerned.I admit, I dont know the intricacies of these protocols and am talking on the user perspective. Regarding Jabber, the problem is that nobody from my contact list (or an average user for that matter) uses it and its next to impossible to convince them to use it. I personally use free (speech) software for 99.9% of my use(both work and personal). I have been stubbornly doing so for a long time also. But IM clients are a different case and we are forced to use the proprietory protocols(atleast the Free software clients of it) IMHO.