It's also the case that the BPI doesn't represent the whole music industry so their ability to speak for all musicians should be questioned.
I was disappointed with their response to my article, I have to say - they just don't seem to have a clue what they are going to do, and are flailing around aimlessly. Ah well, their time has passed...
Ouch - that hurts - a poor article, huh. I think - but then I would - that I'm making a valid point in to a non-technical audience in an accessible way. I didn't write the headline, btw, and wouldn't have expressed it quite as brutally since I was trying to be rather nuanced. Still, anything that gets the discussion going is good by me, as I think that awareness what Vista and other DRMd OSs (I'm writing this on my Mac) is vital if we're to hold the line.
Don't be scared - understand the difference between a column and a news story. I wasn't writing a news story, I was writing a bylined, clearly flagged as such, opinion piece based on my understanding of what was going on, talking about the implications as I saw them and explaining the background. I work as a reporter too, and operate in a different way, but I think it's reasonable to say 'this is what we hear is going on, these are the reports from other places, what does it imply?'
I do think the article was a good one, because it aimed to explore what I saw as a potentially bad proposal, and in so doing I've learned that Jimmy Wales' point of view and mine are pretty different on this matter.
Well the BBC - or rather me, a columnist who writes on the BBC website - took what information was available from the German site, an interview with Jimmy Wales on news.com and general reading and wrote a column speculating about the implications of a more controlled Wikipedia for the site. That's not getting it wrong, except that decisions had apparently been made which were not known to me, as an outsider, at the time I wrote. No FUD, just a rapidly changing situation.
The difference between edits being 'applied' and 'visible' is of course one that can be debated endlessly and no doubt will be. The reality - that many users will not see the most recently edited version of a page - is most interesting to me. Whether this makes Wikipedia more or less wiki-like may be left as an exercise for the reader - I know where I stand.
I wrote the BBC piece, and it's generated a lot of discussion on the WikiEN-l mailing list, as well as some correspondence between me and senior wikipedians around the question of whether the German proposal amounts to making the Wikipedia *more* or *less* wikilike. My blog posting goes into more detail.
At the moment Jimbo and I have agreed a truce- we disagree over the implications, and I accept that he sees what's happening as an improvement not a restriction.
Well, I mentioned free software because the licenses try to do the same 'get out of jail free' job as the worst Microsoft/Apple EULA, and I thought it was worth pointing out. There's been some discussion about whether it's unreasonable to want providers of free (no cost) software to accept any legal liability, and I think it's a good and relevant discussion - I used the Firefox license as an example just so that the debate would cover this and not simply focus on the evils of Microsoft [though they are evil, of course:-) ]. In my view consequential damage caused by neglicence should result in liability whether the product is zero cost or paid for, but that's just my view.
Geomon - it's true, I'm in favour of government and some forms of regulation, but then I'm a. european b. a socialst. But I don't think the government should run our lives, and I think regulation should be appropriate, justifiable and limited - I just don't rule it out as a potential solution to some problems.
Look how car designs are regulated and you see an industry which manages to be creative and even sometimes profitable within a massive web of government-imposed restrictions. And as a result cars are safer to drive. I would like to see a discussion about how we can get better, safer and more reliable software, and I don't think the free market can deliver it, much as I wish it could [because by and large that's better than regulation, when it works]
Hi there - I agree that complete liability would cause major problems, but in the BBC article I was trying to raise awareness of the issue and provoke some discussion ( seems to be working) about an issue that is generally disregarded. I care about the ease with which shoddy and insecure code gets out there, and the current approach does not work - as Bruce Schneier said, the wrong people are picking up the tab. So maybe we need different forms of liability, and maybe we need to find ways to let those of us who are happy to run buggy open source apps take the risk while protecting less technically aware consumers - that's cool. I just think it's time to do something.
thanks, Grumpyman. I wasn't trying to attack the GPL or FLOSS in the piece, but did want to make the point that the issue applies to both proprietary and free/open source software - it's a product of the way we develop and release programs, and it won't be easy to deal with. It's not enough to have a license that disclaims all responsibility - I don't expect my elderly dad to be able to scan the source code of a FLOSS browser, just as I don't expect him to know what a bad security record Microsoft has. We have consumer protection laws because we acknowledge this - everywhere but in software, it seems!
I think the key thing here is 'through gross neglicence', because it seems that the way we currently develop and deliver software, even security-critical software, is rotten and does constitute neglicence on the part of authors, publishers and distributors. We have never given safety and fitness for purpose enough importance, and as a result we have a system which needs thorough reform. What I was trying to do in my piece is make people more aware of what's wrong at the moment, but I admit that I don't have a good way to get from where we are to a perfect (or even a better) world.
Well I didn't mean it to be read as a straight analogy - I was just trying to point out that liability exists in lots of different places, in order to emphasise my core point that the way we currently buy and use software doesn't seem sustainable, and certainly doesn't seem capable of delivering reliable programs to users.
help... my mouth is burning...
My lawyer will be in touch in the morning - I'll start by asking/. to let me have your registration details, of course, and I'm sure they'll be as helpful as those nice Yahoo! China people
Ouch - that stings! I'm sorry you don't think much of what I write, but the BBC column I do is just that - a personal column (hence the byline and pic) about whatever is on my mind, and I try to make it relevant and interesting to non-tech people as well as anyone who wanders in from/.
I don't want or expect everyone to agree with me, but I don't think it's reasonable to accuse me of 'self-promotion and ego' as if I knew nothing about what's going on. I've got a degree in Computer Science, I used to run the new media department at The Guardian and I've been a technology writer for nearly twenty years - and the Win/Mac email piece was about the importance of standards and lockin, using my problems as a hook, not about the problem itself.
But hey, it's nice to be able to have the conversation:-)
'a bit light'! huh - you try getting serious tech discussion into a BBC news article for general readers:-) Honest, I'm not paid by M$ and I don't own shares in *anything* except through my personal pension. I'm just trying to keep the conversation lively....
Nice thought - I wish M$ had paid me vast amounts of cash to float the idea, and if they do go ahead with I will of course expect a cut... but the sad truth is that I'm an IT journalist and I tend to lie awake at night thinking deep thoughts about computing and the future. This one has been in the back of my mind for ages, and I was chatting about it with a friend last week and he suggested I write it down. Like I said in the article - I know nothing about Microsoft's plans and I'm not exactly their best friend!
Slashdot Mirror
It's also the case that the BPI doesn't represent the whole music industry so their ability to speak for all musicians should be questioned. I was disappointed with their response to my article, I have to say - they just don't seem to have a clue what they are going to do, and are flailing around aimlessly. Ah well, their time has passed...
Ouch - that hurts - a poor article, huh. I think - but then I would - that I'm making a valid point in to a non-technical audience in an accessible way. I didn't write the headline, btw, and wouldn't have expressed it quite as brutally since I was trying to be rather nuanced. Still, anything that gets the discussion going is good by me, as I think that awareness what Vista and other DRMd OSs (I'm writing this on my Mac) is vital if we're to hold the line.
Don't be scared - understand the difference between a column and a news story. I wasn't writing a news story, I was writing a bylined, clearly flagged as such, opinion piece based on my understanding of what was going on, talking about the implications as I saw them and explaining the background. I work as a reporter too, and operate in a different way, but I think it's reasonable to say 'this is what we hear is going on, these are the reports from other places, what does it imply?' I do think the article was a good one, because it aimed to explore what I saw as a potentially bad proposal, and in so doing I've learned that Jimmy Wales' point of view and mine are pretty different on this matter.
The difference between edits being 'applied' and 'visible' is of course one that can be debated endlessly and no doubt will be. The reality - that many users will not see the most recently edited version of a page - is most interesting to me. Whether this makes Wikipedia more or less wiki-like may be left as an exercise for the reader - I know where I stand.
I wrote the BBC piece, and it's generated a lot of discussion on the WikiEN-l mailing list, as well as some correspondence between me and senior wikipedians around the question of whether the German proposal amounts to making the Wikipedia *more* or *less* wikilike. My blog posting goes into more detail. At the moment Jimbo and I have agreed a truce- we disagree over the implications, and I accept that he sees what's happening as an improvement not a restriction.
Well, I mentioned free software because the licenses try to do the same 'get out of jail free' job as the worst Microsoft/Apple EULA, and I thought it was worth pointing out. There's been some discussion about whether it's unreasonable to want providers of free (no cost) software to accept any legal liability, and I think it's a good and relevant discussion - I used the Firefox license as an example just so that the debate would cover this and not simply focus on the evils of Microsoft [though they are evil, of course :-) ]. In my view consequential damage caused by neglicence should result in liability whether the product is zero cost or paid for, but that's just my view.
Geomon - it's true, I'm in favour of government and some forms of regulation, but then I'm a. european b. a socialst. But I don't think the government should run our lives, and I think regulation should be appropriate, justifiable and limited - I just don't rule it out as a potential solution to some problems. Look how car designs are regulated and you see an industry which manages to be creative and even sometimes profitable within a massive web of government-imposed restrictions. And as a result cars are safer to drive. I would like to see a discussion about how we can get better, safer and more reliable software, and I don't think the free market can deliver it, much as I wish it could [because by and large that's better than regulation, when it works]
Hi there - I agree that complete liability would cause major problems, but in the BBC article I was trying to raise awareness of the issue and provoke some discussion ( seems to be working) about an issue that is generally disregarded. I care about the ease with which shoddy and insecure code gets out there, and the current approach does not work - as Bruce Schneier said, the wrong people are picking up the tab. So maybe we need different forms of liability, and maybe we need to find ways to let those of us who are happy to run buggy open source apps take the risk while protecting less technically aware consumers - that's cool. I just think it's time to do something.
thanks, Grumpyman. I wasn't trying to attack the GPL or FLOSS in the piece, but did want to make the point that the issue applies to both proprietary and free/open source software - it's a product of the way we develop and release programs, and it won't be easy to deal with. It's not enough to have a license that disclaims all responsibility - I don't expect my elderly dad to be able to scan the source code of a FLOSS browser, just as I don't expect him to know what a bad security record Microsoft has. We have consumer protection laws because we acknowledge this - everywhere but in software, it seems!
I think the key thing here is 'through gross neglicence', because it seems that the way we currently develop and deliver software, even security-critical software, is rotten and does constitute neglicence on the part of authors, publishers and distributors. We have never given safety and fitness for purpose enough importance, and as a result we have a system which needs thorough reform. What I was trying to do in my piece is make people more aware of what's wrong at the moment, but I admit that I don't have a good way to get from where we are to a perfect (or even a better) world.
Well I didn't mean it to be read as a straight analogy - I was just trying to point out that liability exists in lots of different places, in order to emphasise my core point that the way we currently buy and use software doesn't seem sustainable, and certainly doesn't seem capable of delivering reliable programs to users.
help... my mouth is burning... My lawyer will be in touch in the morning - I'll start by asking /. to let me have your registration details, of course, and I'm sure they'll be as helpful as those nice Yahoo! China people
Ouch - that stings! I'm sorry you don't think much of what I write, but the BBC column I do is just that - a personal column (hence the byline and pic) about whatever is on my mind, and I try to make it relevant and interesting to non-tech people as well as anyone who wanders in from /.
I don't want or expect everyone to agree with me, but I don't think it's reasonable to accuse me of 'self-promotion and ego' as if I knew nothing about what's going on. I've got a degree in Computer Science, I used to run the new media department at The Guardian and I've been a technology writer for nearly twenty years - and the Win/Mac email piece was about the importance of standards and lockin, using my problems as a hook, not about the problem itself.
But hey, it's nice to be able to have the conversation :-)
'a bit light'! huh - you try getting serious tech discussion into a BBC news article for general readers :-) Honest, I'm not paid by M$ and I don't own shares in *anything* except through my personal pension. I'm just trying to keep the conversation lively....
Nice thought - I wish M$ had paid me vast amounts of cash to float the idea, and if they do go ahead with I will of course expect a cut... but the sad truth is that I'm an IT journalist and I tend to lie awake at night thinking deep thoughts about computing and the future. This one has been in the back of my mind for ages, and I was chatting about it with a friend last week and he suggested I write it down. Like I said in the article - I know nothing about Microsoft's plans and I'm not exactly their best friend!
No I don't. I'd like to think that it's all balanced, reasonable and well-argued :-)