More likley BOTH grades get the borderline-grade stuff. I've had supposedly high-end items fall apart (looking at you, Sony) alongside wal-mart specials that keep going for years.
That's a comparison I often hear. There are some similarities.
For average people, there is nothing wrong with a BMW, but they are too expensive for them and their Ford/Chevy/etc does everything they need to do. For those with enough disposable income, the cost is less of a barrier. The advantages become larger because the obstacles are smaller.
Similarly, you can do anything you want to do just as well on a wintel, but if you have enough cash to make the cost difference less signifigant, why not get the Mac? (if you like them)
But software code itself isn't an idea. It may be based on an idea, but so can a machine.
Your ideas are great for manufacturers, thay can produce anything they want, but it would provide no incentive for inventors or designers. Who would pay someone to design something when everyone else has a right to make and sell anything you come up with.
I don't really think plumbing is a good analogy, you can't download the plumbing repair that your friend bought. The plumber gets paid because you need someone physically there with the know-how.
You are very right about IP not being physical property, I think the attempts to view it in that way have led to some of the bad laws we have now. (infinite copyright, idea patents)
A distinction, but not an important one. There's no real difference than playing it for all your friends in the car.
The only reason the distinction is made is because at some point some bright lawyer realized that commercial users have deeper pockets and can be made to pay more.
All the players being bought up by big labels. Dubious quality, workers and artists getting the shaft as a rule. Competition with the big boys near impossible.
Could apply to the music business or the game business. It's the conglomerates(sp?) utopia.
Since this is targeted toward the "Aunt Tilly" crowd, if it's set up right, the users will probably just notice that it is different and doesn't get the spyware.
Until they go to whatever the equivalent of BB is over there and buy some new gadget and wonder why it won't work.
To really succeed, they would get in the business of selling all sort of hardware gadgets/upgrades themselves, already tested with linspire (that name reeks of marketspeak) and packaged with any needed drivers and a fool proof installer. Then you would produce a positive expierence.
What I would really like to see is retailers that would cater to linux customers across the board, not just on the low end. Then people would really be offered a choice among getting a windows computer, a apple computer, or a linux computer. Something like that may help accelaerate hardware driver support for devices sold in BB type places.
When you see someone on here who tried linux and got fed up, 90% of the time it was due to thier computer not being compatible with whatever form of linux they were trying to use. Creating a more mainstream marketplace for "linux approved" products will go some distance in fixing that. At least people will know what to look for. (now I know that one can research such things now, but we're talking about consumers here, they aren't going to do an in depth analysis before going to the store)
There are some great things being done. They are just being drowned out by the vast majority of PC users who don't care. To most people it's an appliance, it's an internet toaster.
The net result of the consumerization of the PC and the internet is a landscape that only want's to hear about what can be packaged and marketed.
I think one problem is that while you have hardware that is sold as Mac compatible or Windows compatible, with the corresponding logo requirements, and designated sections of the stores for each; linux is simply stuffed in with the PC stuff with the assumption that PC compatible = Linux compatible.
People are pretty much on thier own for figureing out if something is compatible with linux. So they just grab something off the shelf and get dissapointed when it doesn't work. Then if they go online for help thay get bereated for not figuring it out themselves or for buying the wrong thing.
The industry has succesfully promoted the notion that computer hardware should "just work"tm. So when we tell someone that thier el-cheapo printer/scanner or soundcard just isn't going to work (or that they have to do a lot of config editing or recompiling), they are likely to dismiss linux as outdated or worse and go get windows or a mac.
AFAIK the Jaleco version does not include the GPLd MiniLZO parts. Also since the PD "license" contains no restrictions, it is GPL compatible.
So the author is probably ok as long as he has the MiniLZO portion of the code available in source form. Probably no infringement here. Unless you want to argue that the GPL is in fact viral and therefore the whole package is now GPL weather the author likes it or not.
Also he seems to understand the spirit of the GPL well if enough, if not the letter. It is a form of realeaseing your code while imposing some controls.
I don't know any that are requiring it, but broadband ISP are beginning to set people up with it themselves. The standard $10 charge for each additional IPs help encourge it too.
At any rate now that software is coded to get around NAT issues this isn't really such a bad thing.
I am using GSM (Cingular), and it royally sucks. CDMA was much better in coverage with the about the same quality. (however CDMA is helped by the fact that most CDMA phones can fall back to AMPS, while GSM phones can't)
Still both are beat by good old analog AMPS. Had better coverage that I have now, with as good or better quality. No data though. (at least, not easily)
There's this closed source project using his code. Yet, *gasp*, his code is still as free as it ever was. Can you come up with any way in which the use of his code is harmed by this?
It sure looks like that people just don't like seeing other people make money using free tools.
Is code is very much still free. Nothing about his code has changed. There's this new fork that is not free, but that doesn't affect the "freeness" of his code.
There are no ropes or chains on his software now. He is not trying to make money off of it or stop anyone else from doing so.
Why is it that some people are fine with not getting any money off of thier software, then get all bent out of shape when some else finds a legal way to do so.
Apple gets a good bit of business based solely on image. To people who think that the products they use reflect who they are, Apple has a huge advantage.
That may be a minority of thier sales, but don't put too much faith in the consumer.
They DO have to be given legal representation. However, the specifics of how that will work are still fuzzy. The military did seem to move to implement it right away.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a US court case, with a US company, covered on a US website. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
More likley BOTH grades get the borderline-grade stuff. I've had supposedly high-end items fall apart (looking at you, Sony) alongside wal-mart specials that keep going for years.
I just love how they claim that banking laws don't apply to them. It's amazing what you can get away with if you have the cash.
For average people, there is nothing wrong with a BMW, but they are too expensive for them and their Ford/Chevy/etc does everything they need to do. For those with enough disposable income, the cost is less of a barrier. The advantages become larger because the obstacles are smaller.
Similarly, you can do anything you want to do just as well on a wintel, but if you have enough cash to make the cost difference less signifigant, why not get the Mac? (if you like them)Reliable, but it does have security problems. OS9 is more like Win 9x than any NT based system. Some people won't leave it though.
Your ideas are great for manufacturers, thay can produce anything they want, but it would provide no incentive for inventors or designers. Who would pay someone to design something when everyone else has a right to make and sell anything you come up with.
I don't really think plumbing is a good analogy, you can't download the plumbing repair that your friend bought. The plumber gets paid because you need someone physically there with the know-how.You are very right about IP not being physical property, I think the attempts to view it in that way have led to some of the bad laws we have now. (infinite copyright, idea patents)
The only reason the distinction is made is because at some point some bright lawyer realized that commercial users have deeper pockets and can be made to pay more.
It's fun to violate the D M C A!!.....
"Mine works fine so you must be lying!" Go play in traffic.
Could apply to the music business or the game business. It's the conglomerates(sp?) utopia.
Does FL really have such a law? Or, is that just what the co. lawyers tell him?
Until they go to whatever the equivalent of BB is over there and buy some new gadget and wonder why it won't work.
To really succeed, they would get in the business of selling all sort of hardware gadgets/upgrades themselves, already tested with linspire (that name reeks of marketspeak) and packaged with any needed drivers and a fool proof installer. Then you would produce a positive expierence.What I would really like to see is retailers that would cater to linux customers across the board, not just on the low end. Then people would really be offered a choice among getting a windows computer, a apple computer, or a linux computer. Something like that may help accelaerate hardware driver support for devices sold in BB type places.
When you see someone on here who tried linux and got fed up, 90% of the time it was due to thier computer not being compatible with whatever form of linux they were trying to use. Creating a more mainstream marketplace for "linux approved" products will go some distance in fixing that. At least people will know what to look for. (now I know that one can research such things now, but we're talking about consumers here, they aren't going to do an in depth analysis before going to the store)Eh, that was long.
The net result of the consumerization of the PC and the internet is a landscape that only want's to hear about what can be packaged and marketed.
People are pretty much on thier own for figureing out if something is compatible with linux. So they just grab something off the shelf and get dissapointed when it doesn't work. Then if they go online for help thay get bereated for not figuring it out themselves or for buying the wrong thing.
The industry has succesfully promoted the notion that computer hardware should "just work"tm. So when we tell someone that thier el-cheapo printer/scanner or soundcard just isn't going to work (or that they have to do a lot of config editing or recompiling), they are likely to dismiss linux as outdated or worse and go get windows or a mac.So the author is probably ok as long as he has the MiniLZO portion of the code available in source form. Probably no infringement here. Unless you want to argue that the GPL is in fact viral and therefore the whole package is now GPL weather the author likes it or not.
Also he seems to understand the spirit of the GPL well if enough, if not the letter. It is a form of realeaseing your code while imposing some controls.At any rate now that software is coded to get around NAT issues this isn't really such a bad thing.
Still both are beat by good old analog AMPS. Had better coverage that I have now, with as good or better quality. No data though. (at least, not easily)
And how does them making money/not making money change the morality of thier actions?? What they did is either right or it's wrong.
There's this closed source project using his code. Yet, *gasp*, his code is still as free as it ever was. Can you come up with any way in which the use of his code is harmed by this?
It sure looks like that people just don't like seeing other people make money using free tools.
There are no ropes or chains on his software now. He is not trying to make money off of it or stop anyone else from doing so.
Why is it that some people are fine with not getting any money off of thier software, then get all bent out of shape when some else finds a legal way to do so.Only if they buy into the bad analogy of copyright/patent being property rather than simply an intangeable asset.
That may be a minority of thier sales, but don't put too much faith in the consumer.
Your response to the article was to insult the author. I would say the personal issue is right there.
Lots of attacks against the author, and few posts about the specifc points. Typical /.
They DO have to be given legal representation. However, the specifics of how that will work are still fuzzy. The military did seem to move to implement it right away.