"Offtopic, but I wanna give you props for making Andromeda. I've been using it for about 6 months and it's great:)"
First, thanks. It's remarkable how nice a 'props' can feel. Props to you!
However, you're not as offtopic as you might think. A big part why you can send your good will my way is that my name is visibly displayed in the running software.
One of the things that concerns me about the GPL is that somebody can take GPL'd code, rework it to take credit prominently in the interface, but leave the formal credit in the source, and redistribute.
As far as I can tell, that's not a violation, but it totally subverts the author's ability to get credit. And when it comes to GPL, credit is often all that the programmer hopes to get.
Amen. Furthermore, one big benefit of GPL is supposed to be props for the programmers, but credit only needs to appear in the source code, and not in the interface itself, so it's easy enough to hijack GPL code, without even needing to resort to violating the terms of the license.
I really wanted the GPL to make sense for Andromeda but the more I thought about it, the less sense it made for me.
Re:My graffiti kiosk back from '94
on
Open Source Art?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
fwiw, the reason Curator comes to mind in the context of this 'open source art' thread is how user contributions made it increasingly interesting with each passing day.
Basically, it started off with about 50 pictures of art, but in a month it collected well over 500 spontaneous graffiti'd images.
Most were scribbly crap, but many were really quite good, and when you looked at the whole, you could start to detect patterns (such as the image of the baby that everybody got violent with: one made bloody, another with a syringe, another crying, etc).
My point is that the user contributions really took on a life of their own, and totally surpassed what I had started with.
And that's how I imaginge many open-source developers feel about their work.
My graffiti kiosk back from '94
on
Open Source Art?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This reminds me of a kiosk I built for an art gallery show here in SoHo NYC back in '94. Basically, Curator let the gallery visitors add digital graffiti to digitized pictures of the art on display.
It was incredible fun, and quite interesting to see how the graffiti layered up (all stages were saved progressively).
If at all interested, I've got some lingering info about Curator on my personal page (Curator is about the 3rd project down)
"It depends mostly on whether or not you have protected the access to your files"
Well, Andromeda does have a built-in logon feature. You can also require authentication through the web server (note that not all players can authenticate - for instance WMP and Real can, but Winamp can't).
"those that COPY the music will most likely NOT violate copyright law, since the law in most countries states that you have the right to copies for your own use WITHOUT owning the original"
Copying copyrighted material is indeed a violation, certainly here in the US, and that's where USC is, after all.
"That's what the extra price paid on blank media is for"
Actually, my understanding is that the price factored into blank cassettes was basically a concession granted to the entertainment companies to keep them from fighting the introduction of tape decks that could record.
"distributing your own music is not a copyright violation"
Actually, my understanding is that the judge in the Napster case wrote in her decision that it was not only a violation to copy files, but also to make them availabe for copy.
However, if your files were stored on your PC, and you walked over to another student's room and remotely played music from your room, I don't see how that could be construed as a violation (either legally, or by the scool).
If that sort of thing sounds like something you might want to do (remote playback) you might want to take a look at my sofware Andromeda which turns your collection into a streaming site that you can access over the network.
Going further, what's to stop IRC and a number of FTP servers?
That's exactly the thing about *all* of these P2P networks - there's always an obvious target. If you want to keep your collection of files online (for yourself, your friends, or whoever) serve it yourself.
And if you want to serve it over the web, you might take have a look at my software Andromeda which builds a complete streaming site from a collection of files. (PHP or ASP)
I do my best to promote independent musicians at my site. You'll see some in the Microbrowser off to the right. The independents that I feature are all running my software, Andromeda, to serve their audio.
A handy tip: consider posting your MP3 files as mono. You'll have the same fidelity as Hi-Fi, but at half the file size. And there will still be a good reason for your fans to 'upgrade' to the CD.
Actually, Andromeda is widely considered to be easy to install. It auto-configures, and so typically all you have to do is drop it into a folder with your MP3's, OGG's, etc.
And because of that, Andromeda can also run on ISP hosted web servers. In fact, lots of independent musicians are doing just that to help promote their music. I think that's really great, and so I feature them back on the Andromeda site.
Personally, I'd love to see more successful independent musicians on the web...
If you've grown tired of the constant dramas of the P2P networks, you might want to check out my software, Andromeda. It's not anonymous file sharing like Napster, etc, but it does let you stream your collection over the Internet, and you can let friends have access if you choose.
I have PHP and ASP versions for Windows, Unix/Linux, and Mac OS X. (you will need a web server)
"Truely the internet is meant for and best at 2-way, end-to-end communications"
The high-bandwidth provders are stacking the deck with asymmetric services that guarantee that when you participate in 2-way, end-to-end communications you remain more of a 'listener' than a 'speaker'.
I've written software that makes it easy for independents to serve their audio, but without reasonably priced upstream they can't be heard.
I think people don't fully understand that the current high-bandwidth offerings are already 'limiting' their speech.
>> They claim they don't want any recognition in return.
>
> You're absolutely high. Not only is that not true, it is the exact oposite of the truth. For example, the basic idea behind the "Cathedral and the Bazaar" was that open source developers do it for recognition.
There is a *big* difference between the amount of recognition that can be gained from a clear credit in the running interface vs. comments in the source code.
Sure, credit must be kept in the source, but how much does that really matter? These are GUI's after all, and ideally they provide means to guide less saavy users to these environments. But those very same users are *never* going to look at any source.
How then is the programmer to get his due?
I also wanted to say that it's not like "Cathedral and the Bazaar" is the Book Of Law, or anything. It's just one guy's opinions. And if there were a Book Of Law, it'd just be another book by some other guys anyway.
I disagree - a story about a breach of the GPL is in fact a story about the GPL. Perhaps you understand all the implications of the license but I'd bet that a *majority* of younger programmers don't.
Before this thread, I had not thought about the legal defense issues. It's another thing to consider when deciding whether to GPL or not.
You might be a big fan of the GPL, but telling me to shut up and calling me a whiner doesn't make a very strong point.
This thread was about a GPL'd project that is in danger, in large part because of practical problems with the GPL itself.
I sympathize with the programmers because I am one, and it is entirely appropriate to continue to discuss when the GPL might be good, and when not.
I've seen plenty of guys say "what do you mean, they can sell my code?" or "they can put their name on my work?" and there's a lot of misunderstanding. And now there's a new question, "what practical legal measures do I take?"
You should sympathize with these guys, and want them to be informed - not evangelized.
That's neither Flamebait, Redundant, nor Offtopic
Ouch, it was neither! I've been working full-time for 2 years on software that I've been giving away for free. I take this very personally, and very seriously.
I first tried a donationware approach, but far less than 1% ever helped out (and now I know that's fairly typical). So now I sell it instead.
If I had GPL'd my software, somebody else could just start selling it too, and give me nothing at all in return. Yes, they would have to publish it under the GPL too, but still they wouldn't have to give me anything.
And if they sell my code, but don't publish the software, I would need to take legal action. Everybody here seems to say "hire a lawyer, sue them, get rich" but that's not the way the world works.
If it seems questionable whether XVID will be able to attract a lawyer, how is a less known project to supposed to get so lucky?
Full disclosure: I'm an independent developer who has decided no to issue my software under the GPL. I'd like to be able to earn a living selling my work, and it just never seemed fair that with the GPL somebody else could sell my work and give me nothing in return.
However, for those that are comfortable issuing their work under the GPL this seems pretty grim. After all, the vast majority of GPL projects are smaller-scale, less visible works by independent programmers, and possibly a few friends. And so what is the little guy supposed to do? Hire a lawyer? If there's no reasonable way to fix such a situation, that basically means that anybody can come in, and sell your code.
Sure some name-brand lawyer might come and rescue XVID, but will they come rescue you? And at best, Sigma Designs turns around and publishes their source? My guess is that even if they did that XVID would still be pissed.
I've got to say, today leaves me relieved that I never GPL'd my software.
For those that just want to avoid the p2p networks, and instead serve their collection to themselves and to their friends, I humbly offer my software Andromeda, which can be used to stream MP3's and other files. It runs on a web server with PHP or ASP, and works on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X. If you want to control your own media archive, it might do the trick.
I've been a self-employed web-wonk since 1994 when I tried unsucessfully to convince my boss that the web was interesting (it was a business communications company that did slideshows, kiosks, and digital video).
Anyways, one of the first gigs I got was free work for a non-profit arts group here in NYC (Gen Art). I was able to build my portfolio, and make useful contacts that led to paying jobs.
Sometimes it sucks to not have stable finanaces, and sometimes it's great to have a flexible schedule.
I know most/.'ers are fierce open-source advocates, but I think that some serious thought should be given to whether the value of (we) programmers is diminished by giving away their (our) work.
Simple case:/. has its own GPL engine for this site. Futhermore, sites like Plastic have deployed that same engine, and put it to commercial use.
Now, let's just *pretend* that/. is having some financial problems. Doesn't it seem like it would be good if/. could have more secure financials by selling copies of its code?
I work full time on my MP3 streamer Andromeda and I tried begging for donations for years, but less than 1% ever give anything voluntarily.
Not every 'free' project is going to have the good luck of finding a sugar-daddy to pay the bills. How is an independent programmer supposed to buy food?
The media companies that produce conventional content are working hard to ensure that our high bandwidth pipes favor the consumption rather than the production of digital media.
Why does that matter? Because it limits the ability of independent voices to be heard. I make software for streaming audio and video and there's nothing better than seeing independent music coming from independent sites, but because bandwidth is typically lousy upstream, those sorts of sites are much less common than they should be.
We've got all this great tech (audio software, digital video, a common network, etc.) but without decent upstream you can't effectivly get your work out.
It seems like we're never going to have reasonably priced upstream bandwidth, and that pisses me off.
From my experience making Andromeda, the main reason people restrict access to thier files is that upstream bandwidth is limited, and they'd rather keep it for themselves (or a small group of friends).
If the cable/dsl providers were mostly selling symmetric rather than asymmetric services, I'd bet that those same users would be much less likely to restrict access. Furthermore, I think the providers are well aware of that, so don't expect symmetric service to become common anytime soon.
Slashdot Mirror
First, thanks. It's remarkable how nice a 'props' can feel. Props to you!
However, you're not as offtopic as you might think. A big part why you can send your good will my way is that my name is visibly displayed in the running software.
One of the things that concerns me about the GPL is that somebody can take GPL'd code, rework it to take credit prominently in the interface, but leave the formal credit in the source, and redistribute.
As far as I can tell, that's not a violation, but it totally subverts the author's ability to get credit. And when it comes to GPL, credit is often all that the programmer hopes to get.
The FSF also asks that you tranfer the copyright on music by The Experiments over to the FSF.
Tempted? ;)
I really wanted the GPL to make sense for Andromeda but the more I thought about it, the less sense it made for me.
Basically, it started off with about 50 pictures of art, but in a month it collected well over 500 spontaneous graffiti'd images.
Most were scribbly crap, but many were really quite good, and when you looked at the whole, you could start to detect patterns (such as the image of the baby that everybody got violent with: one made bloody, another with a syringe, another crying, etc).
My point is that the user contributions really took on a life of their own, and totally surpassed what I had started with.
And that's how I imaginge many open-source developers feel about their work.
It was incredible fun, and quite interesting to see how the graffiti layered up (all stages were saved progressively).
If at all interested, I've got some lingering info about Curator on my personal page (Curator is about the 3rd project down)
Well, Andromeda does have a built-in logon feature. You can also require authentication through the web server (note that not all players can authenticate - for instance WMP and Real can, but Winamp can't).
"those that COPY the music will most likely NOT violate copyright law, since the law in most countries states that you have the right to copies for your own use WITHOUT owning the original"
Copying copyrighted material is indeed a violation, certainly here in the US, and that's where USC is, after all.
"That's what the extra price paid on blank media is for"
Actually, my understanding is that the price factored into blank cassettes was basically a concession granted to the entertainment companies to keep them from fighting the introduction of tape decks that could record.
Actually, my understanding is that the judge in the Napster case wrote in her decision that it was not only a violation to copy files, but also to make them availabe for copy.
However, if your files were stored on your PC, and you walked over to another student's room and remotely played music from your room, I don't see how that could be construed as a violation (either legally, or by the scool).
If that sort of thing sounds like something you might want to do (remote playback) you might want to take a look at my sofware Andromeda which turns your collection into a streaming site that you can access over the network.
That's exactly the thing about *all* of these P2P networks - there's always an obvious target. If you want to keep your collection of files online (for yourself, your friends, or whoever) serve it yourself.
And if you want to serve it over the web, you might take have a look at my software Andromeda which builds a complete streaming site from a collection of files. (PHP or ASP)
Works great alongside FTP.
A handy tip: consider posting your MP3 files as mono. You'll have the same fidelity as Hi-Fi, but at half the file size. And there will still be a good reason for your fans to 'upgrade' to the CD.
And because of that, Andromeda can also run on ISP hosted web servers. In fact, lots of independent musicians are doing just that to help promote their music. I think that's really great, and so I feature them back on the Andromeda site.
Personally, I'd love to see more successful independent musicians on the web...
I have PHP and ASP versions for Windows, Unix/Linux, and Mac OS X. (you will need a web server)
The high-bandwidth provders are stacking the deck with asymmetric services that guarantee that when you participate in 2-way, end-to-end communications you remain more of a 'listener' than a 'speaker'.
I've written software that makes it easy for independents to serve their audio, but without reasonably priced upstream they can't be heard.
I think people don't fully understand that the current high-bandwidth offerings are already 'limiting' their speech.
>
> You're absolutely high. Not only is that not true, it is the exact oposite of the truth. For example, the basic idea behind the "Cathedral and the Bazaar" was that open source developers do it for recognition.
There is a *big* difference between the amount of recognition that can be gained from a clear credit in the running interface vs. comments in the source code.
Sure, credit must be kept in the source, but how much does that really matter? These are GUI's after all, and ideally they provide means to guide less saavy users to these environments. But those very same users are *never* going to look at any source.
How then is the programmer to get his due?
I also wanted to say that it's not like "Cathedral and the Bazaar" is the Book Of Law, or anything. It's just one guy's opinions. And if there were a Book Of Law, it'd just be another book by some other guys anyway.
-Scott
Before this thread, I had not thought about the legal defense issues. It's another thing to consider when deciding whether to GPL or not.
You might be a big fan of the GPL, but telling me to shut up and calling me a whiner doesn't make a very strong point.
I guess that makes it a hattrick ;)
This thread was about a GPL'd project that is in danger, in large part because of practical problems with the GPL itself.
I sympathize with the programmers because I am one, and it is entirely appropriate to continue to discuss when the GPL might be good, and when not.
I've seen plenty of guys say "what do you mean, they can sell my code?" or "they can put their name on my work?" and there's a lot of misunderstanding. And now there's a new question, "what practical legal measures do I take?"
You should sympathize with these guys, and want them to be informed - not evangelized. That's neither Flamebait, Redundant, nor Offtopic
Ouch, it was neither! I've been working full-time for 2 years on software that I've been giving away for free. I take this very personally, and very seriously.
I first tried a donationware approach, but far less than 1% ever helped out (and now I know that's fairly typical). So now I sell it instead.
If I had GPL'd my software, somebody else could just start selling it too, and give me nothing at all in return. Yes, they would have to publish it under the GPL too, but still they wouldn't have to give me anything.
And if they sell my code, but don't publish the software, I would need to take legal action. Everybody here seems to say "hire a lawyer, sue them, get rich" but that's not the way the world works.
If it seems questionable whether XVID will be able to attract a lawyer, how is a less known project to supposed to get so lucky?
However, for those that are comfortable issuing their work under the GPL this seems pretty grim. After all, the vast majority of GPL projects are smaller-scale, less visible works by independent programmers, and possibly a few friends. And so what is the little guy supposed to do? Hire a lawyer? If there's no reasonable way to fix such a situation, that basically means that anybody can come in, and sell your code.
Sure some name-brand lawyer might come and rescue XVID, but will they come rescue you? And at best, Sigma Designs turns around and publishes their source? My guess is that even if they did that XVID would still be pissed.
I've got to say, today leaves me relieved that I never GPL'd my software.
Hey thanks! Bold of you to cite your site on /.
If you want your collection included in the Microbrowser, let me know.
-Scott
For those that just want to avoid the p2p networks, and instead serve their collection to themselves and to their friends, I humbly offer my software Andromeda, which can be used to stream MP3's and other files. It runs on a web server with PHP or ASP, and works on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X. If you want to control your own media archive, it might do the trick.
Don't forget that 2600 was forced to remove a bloody link, after all.
Anyways, one of the first gigs I got was free work for a non-profit arts group here in NYC (Gen Art). I was able to build my portfolio, and make useful contacts that led to paying jobs.
Sometimes it sucks to not have stable finanaces, and sometimes it's great to have a flexible schedule.
Simple case: /. has its own GPL engine for this site. Futhermore, sites like Plastic have deployed that same engine, and put it to commercial use.
Now, let's just *pretend* that /. is having some financial problems. Doesn't it seem like it would be good if /. could have more secure financials by selling copies of its code?
I work full time on my MP3 streamer Andromeda and I tried begging for donations for years, but less than 1% ever give anything voluntarily.
Not every 'free' project is going to have the good luck of finding a sugar-daddy to pay the bills. How is an independent programmer supposed to buy food?
Why does that matter? Because it limits the ability of independent voices to be heard. I make software for streaming audio and video and there's nothing better than seeing independent music coming from independent sites, but because bandwidth is typically lousy upstream, those sorts of sites are much less common than they should be.
We've got all this great tech (audio software, digital video, a common network, etc.) but without decent upstream you can't effectivly get your work out.
It seems like we're never going to have reasonably priced upstream bandwidth, and that pisses me off.
I've never heard of ADSL that favored upstream over downstream. Is that how they sold the service, or is it just how it performs?
If the cable/dsl providers were mostly selling symmetric rather than asymmetric services, I'd bet that those same users would be much less likely to restrict access. Furthermore, I think the providers are well aware of that, so don't expect symmetric service to become common anytime soon.