Minor quibble, but it's important enough to be stated. GPL'd works are under full copyright (to use your phrase). There are simply certain additional, relatively major rights that are granted if you accept certain additional, relatively minor responsibilities.
That's not the way that CC defines "full copyright". CC likes to call all of their licenses (of which the GPL is one of them, with extra surronding features in a package they call CC-GPL) as a copyright with "some rights reserved" as compared to somebody with a copyright claiming that they have "all rights reserved".
All of the CC licenses are basically of the form you can do "X, Y or Z" so long as you don't do "A, B and C". If you need more rights or less restrictions than the one they're offering for free, you can contact the author to buy another license.
Wow, I hadn't heard of Creative Commons before. What do they get their authority from?
They're a self-appointed authority. But when you think about it, all of the GPL advocates are too.
They're basically a non-profit that has the main idea that there can be many licenses that exist between full-on copyright protection and public domain, and the GPL is only one of them. Their main licenses are comprised of letting the author make four binary choices and giving them a fully written-out license that matches those decisions, and they have a few offshoot licenses as well such as one called "Founder's Copyright" which is an agreement to release your work under the public domain after 14 or 28 years of full protection instead of the 95 years that the law otherwise grants, and the CC-GPL which is the based on the official GPL with the addition of the metadata and translation features they offer with their other licenses. They also do the same with the LGPL to create the CC-LGPL
They also advocate a metadata standard for license conditions that in the future will hopefully lead to a contrent-creator-aimed search engine that allows people to search for available works that can be dropped into their own works.
It's really a group that understands that the GPL isn't perfect, and allows for anybody who wants to splinter from it from any good reason to create a new license that doesn't have that attribute.
If the time limit was set to 30 seconds, I'm pretty sure some webstreams at least might pick up the ads as PSAs. However, it's impossible for a for-profit TV station to use these with the Non-Commercial and Share-Alike bits of the CC license being used. At least nobody went for the No Derivative Works flag to prohibit mocking them...:)
I'm a bit disappointed that two out of the three winners chose the "share-alike" attribute on their Creative Commons license.
One of the strongest selling points the CC system has is that they're not the GPL... they offer variants that don't have the "viral clause" that requires those who use CC pieces to require that the whole work be licensed the same way. Since the strongest selling point of the CC system is that there are really sixteen CC licenses that are formed by mixing and matching four binary attributes. It's possible to insert a CC work into something that's under full copyright, and that's something the GPL just can't do. Flexablity is the whole point of CC.
But maybe they took the flexability too far here. I'm a little surprised the contest organizers left the free selection of CC licenses open to the entrants. I would have suggested that all entries be under a CC license with Attribution and No Derivative Works... therefore allowing anybody who wants to spread the word of Creative Commons to republish the essentially PSA ad works without dictating what the publisher has to do with theirs.
Afterall, the winners got some pretty cool stuff. They've been well paid for their work...
Slashdot posted news of this device last June. Philips said they were testing it in hotels and then wanted to get it into homes. Seems like we've got nothing but a press release echo story here.
The great failing of DSL is that it works great for those close to the CO point, but it's useless to those too far away. It's a true feast or famine situation.
It's a case of matching the network technology to the application. It's the reason why we have both TCP (for when it needs to get there uncorrupted) and UDP (for when any packet that's late is now of no use) available for use under IP.
There's a big difference between a 911 call on Earth, and getting data back from Mars. Those two networks should likely have very little in common.
This brings up an interesting step in the path towards trying to settle Mars... would it be a smart idea to have communciations satellites orbiting Mars before we send the first humans?
Having the already-in-space assets so that reliable Earth-to-Mars links can be established could be very useful to the first manned missions, especially so we could avoid losing contact in the situations where they'd otherwise have to transmit through the planet to get back to earth.
Imagine having all of Mars already be a wireless Internet hotspot before we get there...
It has been done before, however. The 16-bit Super Nintendo system had no compatibility at all to the 8-bit NES. This lead to the an SNES game that contained all 3 of the NES Super Mario Bros. game titles, and a bonus called "the lost levels" which is what was released under the title Super Mario Bros. 2 in Japan. (Nobody can exactly figure out why Mario characters were stuffed into Doki Doki Panic for the US sequel.)
Notwithstanding that the deal itself called for IE to be the default-after-install browser on the Mac. That was the only piece of control MS got, it got no more.
NT in the past ran on past PowerPC chips... but there would likely still need to be some modernization done so that they could take advantage of the latest revision of PowerPC chips.
IBM keeps revising the PowerPC chips with their own version number. When Apple gets a chip they like, they dub it whatever the next Gn number is, and then order a few hundred thousand of them. So, there right now is only one OS that's fully tweaked-out for the "G5 chip", and it's Apple.
That'd make a little more sense... typically in simulation environments the "blue team" are the friendlies, and the "red team" represents the people playing the side of enemies.
Since it's not going to be out for another 18 months, Microsoft's counting on a Moore's Law-compliant doubling of all of the technologies involved at the same price point they're at now...
Besides, everything gets cheaper when you buy it in bulk...
That'd be a good starting point, but clearly somebody would have to do the work to upgrade that version to take advantage of the modern PowerPC chip rather than the one that was around a few years ago.
This is the second major snub by Microsoft towards Intel. The first was when the 64-bit demo of Windows XP came out only supporting AMD Chips, which effectively forced Intel into the AMD-emulation business when for years it was AMD who had to release Intel-compatible chips.
Somehow, the Wintel alliance seems to have broken up, and Intel's in danger of being voted out at the next tribal council now...
Slashdot Mirror
Minor quibble, but it's important enough to be stated. GPL'd works are under full copyright (to use your phrase). There are simply certain additional, relatively major rights that are granted if you accept certain additional, relatively minor responsibilities.
That's not the way that CC defines "full copyright". CC likes to call all of their licenses (of which the GPL is one of them, with extra surronding features in a package they call CC-GPL) as a copyright with "some rights reserved" as compared to somebody with a copyright claiming that they have "all rights reserved".
All of the CC licenses are basically of the form you can do "X, Y or Z" so long as you don't do "A, B and C". If you need more rights or less restrictions than the one they're offering for free, you can contact the author to buy another license.
Wow, I hadn't heard of Creative Commons before. What do they get their authority from?
They're a self-appointed authority. But when you think about it, all of the GPL advocates are too.
They're basically a non-profit that has the main idea that there can be many licenses that exist between full-on copyright protection and public domain, and the GPL is only one of them. Their main licenses are comprised of letting the author make four binary choices and giving them a fully written-out license that matches those decisions, and they have a few offshoot licenses as well such as one called "Founder's Copyright" which is an agreement to release your work under the public domain after 14 or 28 years of full protection instead of the 95 years that the law otherwise grants, and the CC-GPL which is the based on the official GPL with the addition of the metadata and translation features they offer with their other licenses. They also do the same with the LGPL to create the CC-LGPL
They also advocate a metadata standard for license conditions that in the future will hopefully lead to a contrent-creator-aimed search engine that allows people to search for available works that can be dropped into their own works.
It's really a group that understands that the GPL isn't perfect, and allows for anybody who wants to splinter from it from any good reason to create a new license that doesn't have that attribute.
At least Creative Commons is hosting the multi-MB .mov files on behalf of the winners. However, their own websites will be on their own...
If the time limit was set to 30 seconds, I'm pretty sure some webstreams at least might pick up the ads as PSAs. However, it's impossible for a for-profit TV station to use these with the Non-Commercial and Share-Alike bits of the CC license being used. At least nobody went for the No Derivative Works flag to prohibit mocking them... :)
I'm a bit disappointed that two out of the three winners chose the "share-alike" attribute on their Creative Commons license.
One of the strongest selling points the CC system has is that they're not the GPL... they offer variants that don't have the "viral clause" that requires those who use CC pieces to require that the whole work be licensed the same way. Since the strongest selling point of the CC system is that there are really sixteen CC licenses that are formed by mixing and matching four binary attributes. It's possible to insert a CC work into something that's under full copyright, and that's something the GPL just can't do. Flexablity is the whole point of CC.
But maybe they took the flexability too far here. I'm a little surprised the contest organizers left the free selection of CC licenses open to the entrants. I would have suggested that all entries be under a CC license with Attribution and No Derivative Works... therefore allowing anybody who wants to spread the word of Creative Commons to republish the essentially PSA ad works without dictating what the publisher has to do with theirs.
Afterall, the winners got some pretty cool stuff. They've been well paid for their work...
Mod it up as funny if you like, but it sure is not informative. RTFA, mods...
Slashdot posted news of this device last June. Philips said they were testing it in hotels and then wanted to get it into homes. Seems like we've got nothing but a press release echo story here.
Actually, the mirror is posted here.
I mean, the mirror showing a picture is posted here.
Maybe I should say it's a picture of the mirror showing showing a picture here.
Whatever, just click here and see for yourself...
I am? Since when?
Philips Introduces Mirror TV
Posted by CowboyNeal on Thursday June 12, 2003 @05:35PM
The great failing of DSL is that it works great for those close to the CO point, but it's useless to those too far away. It's a true feast or famine situation.
It's a case of matching the network technology to the application. It's the reason why we have both TCP (for when it needs to get there uncorrupted) and UDP (for when any packet that's late is now of no use) available for use under IP.
There's a big difference between a 911 call on Earth, and getting data back from Mars. Those two networks should likely have very little in common.
This brings up an interesting step in the path towards trying to settle Mars... would it be a smart idea to have communciations satellites orbiting Mars before we send the first humans?
Having the already-in-space assets so that reliable Earth-to-Mars links can be established could be very useful to the first manned missions, especially so we could avoid losing contact in the situations where they'd otherwise have to transmit through the planet to get back to earth.
Imagine having all of Mars already be a wireless Internet hotspot before we get there...
Yellow for Cocoa makes sense... they're the new guys.
It has been done before, however. The 16-bit Super Nintendo system had no compatibility at all to the 8-bit NES. This lead to the an SNES game that contained all 3 of the NES Super Mario Bros. game titles, and a bonus called "the lost levels" which is what was released under the title Super Mario Bros. 2 in Japan. (Nobody can exactly figure out why Mario characters were stuffed into Doki Doki Panic for the US sequel.)
MS never had ANY control over Apple,
Notwithstanding that the deal itself called for IE to be the default-after-install browser on the Mac. That was the only piece of control MS got, it got no more.
NT in the past ran on past PowerPC chips... but there would likely still need to be some modernization done so that they could take advantage of the latest revision of PowerPC chips.
IBM keeps revising the PowerPC chips with their own version number. When Apple gets a chip they like, they dub it whatever the next Gn number is, and then order a few hundred thousand of them. So, there right now is only one OS that's fully tweaked-out for the "G5 chip", and it's Apple.
That'd make a little more sense... typically in simulation environments the "blue team" are the friendlies, and the "red team" represents the people playing the side of enemies.
I know, but the rainbow colors are funnier...
Oh, yeah, it's out now. But the point is, since when did the AMD version of anything come out before the Intel version?
Since it's not going to be out for another 18 months, Microsoft's counting on a Moore's Law-compliant doubling of all of the technologies involved at the same price point they're at now...
Besides, everything gets cheaper when you buy it in bulk...
The project already has a codename: OSXbox.
That'd be a good starting point, but clearly somebody would have to do the work to upgrade that version to take advantage of the modern PowerPC chip rather than the one that was around a few years ago.
This is the second major snub by Microsoft towards Intel. The first was when the 64-bit demo of Windows XP came out only supporting AMD Chips, which effectively forced Intel into the AMD-emulation business when for years it was AMD who had to release Intel-compatible chips.
Somehow, the Wintel alliance seems to have broken up, and Intel's in danger of being voted out at the next tribal council now...
Actually, under contract with Apple the crash screen is now striped in rainbow colors.