I like IP rights. I think they're good; people should have the right to make a few bucks with something they invented, without the worry of competition for a little while. This is a good thing, because it gives motivation to innovate -- why create something if your competitors are free to copy it immediately and glut the market?
However, I agree that IP rights are out of control. Copyrights are being extended indefinitely, patents are granted with broad wording that allows for devious undermining of previous IP.
The cause is very obvious: corporations. They have the money and power to lobby for extentions and special rights on their legal monopolies. The solution is simple: eliminate corporate right of ownership of IP, and return it to the hands of the inventors and authors.
Obviously even with such a change, there would be openings for abuse, but they would be greatly limited by also eliminating the right to sell or transfer IP rights.
Anyway, that's my opinion on the subject. Feel free to pick it apart.
In that case, can your users sue *you* for having distributed patented code?
Yep. They may be liable for using patented code, but you are certainly liable for distributing it. It's sorta like (ok 100% like) distributing stolen merchandise that you didn't know was stolen. You're liable for selling or distributing the stolen merchandise, and your customer is liable for receiving it.
Should you pay for their licenses?
I assume you mean licenses for the patented software. Yes, if you wish to continue using that code.
If you knew that you could potentially be liable would you release your code under OSS?
Of course not! You should never release anything for which you could be liable. Case in point: Napster. They knew going in that they were deliberately skirting copyright law. They should not have released that software and then gotten all surprised when the RIAA came down hard on them.
Note: I'm not making moral statements here, just arguing "what is". I think software patents are abominations, and even copyrights should be strictly limited and never owned by anything other than an individual.
Open source software is software where you can
see & play with the source.
The hilighted portion is the problem. Patented software you may most certainly not see, or play with, unless you have direct permission from the owner of the patent.
I hope not. Beacuse if they are responsible for patent violations of their software by users then open source developers are going to be in for a world of hurt.
This has always been the case; it's basic patent law. Patents are legally guaranteed monopolies, and anyone who violates that monopoly is in for a world of hurt. No OSS developer worth his salt uses patented or copyrighted code.
I'm sorry, but distributing code which violates a patent should definately not be infringing behavior; but IANAL. If it is, that is the nail in the OSS coffin.
How so? OSS should never rely on patented or copyrighted code, otherwise it is not truly open source.
The best thing I can think of is a parse of the URLs and a double-check against URLs in previous posts. Of course, that leaves out the same news reported with different links, and a slew of other problems; the big problem is the subjectivity.
I'd really like to know how such a subjective thing could be coded into slashdot.
Yes, exactly right. But TCP is one level higher in the networking scheme than routers are, which is why the author is pushing his new algorithm in my opinion -- an additional form of congestion control.
What I don't understand is how routers don't seem to consider alternatives as much as I would have thought. The article implies routers have tunnel vision when it comes to picking choices to destinations. I thought they adapted to traffic burdens, but I guess I'm wrong.
Actually, routers do consider alternatives. This sort of congestion has been a problem with the Internet since day one. This guy is just pushing a new way of doing things, is all.
It's a continuing process, really. There are several protocols and algorithms to reduce congestion (not the least of which is a higher-level protocol known as TCP;)). I think what's going on here is the author is trying to push a new method to control congestion at the network (routing) level.
The author is not trying to say "those bastards over at network X are selfish and they're slowing us down" or anything like that. He's trying to point out that a fundamental aspect of internet routing, the concept of forwarding a packet via the fastest route to the destination, can in many cases slow down performance if the fastest route gets congested.
Frankly, I'm surprised this is considered news; I learned it in a networking course on my way to a CS degree. I can only assume that the author is trying to push a new algorithm for congestion control and is using "selfish routing" as a marketing scheme. The thing is, I can't seem to find the suggested reprieve.
Ahh, here it is:
Roughgarden has a suggestion that wouldn't be expensive to implement. Before deciding which way to send information, he says, routers should consider not only which route seems the least congested, but also should take into account the effect that adding its own new messages will have on the route it has chosen. That would be, he says, "just a bit altruistic" in that some routers would end up choosing routes that were not necessarily the fastest, but the average time for all users would decrease.
I was about to post something along those lines when I noted your post.
I wonder if, perhaps, there is some miscommunication and assumption going on here? What really is the difference between strong and weak typing?
Yes, I was aware of that, but Jython is slower than either language alone, IME. I have no real desire to code in python to call Java SWT (for example) which in turn only calls native widgets itself. It's a double-wrapper that would unnecessarily slow down GUI performance.
I sure as hell wouldn't use python to call Swing...:D Talk about a lose-lose situation...
No what I meant was that I would like to see some (very thin!) wrappers in python for native OS widgets, sorta like SWT. wxWindows just doesn't cut it, IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
My patent on the patenting of the patenting of "not anything new" ideas, is currently pending. :)
I like IP rights. I think they're good; people should have the right to make a few bucks with something they invented, without the worry of competition for a little while. This is a good thing, because it gives motivation to innovate -- why create something if your competitors are free to copy it immediately and glut the market?
However, I agree that IP rights are out of control. Copyrights are being extended indefinitely, patents are granted with broad wording that allows for devious undermining of previous IP.
The cause is very obvious: corporations. They have the money and power to lobby for extentions and special rights on their legal monopolies. The solution is simple: eliminate corporate right of ownership of IP, and return it to the hands of the inventors and authors.
Obviously even with such a change, there would be openings for abuse, but they would be greatly limited by also eliminating the right to sell or transfer IP rights. Anyway, that's my opinion on the subject. Feel free to pick it apart.
Fraud. Fraud, fraud, FRAUD!!!!!!!!!
Runs from the black SUVs
Note: I'm not making moral statements here, just arguing "what is". I think software patents are abominations, and even copyrights should be strictly limited and never owned by anything other than an individual.
It still amounts to a sale under false pretenses; buyer beware does not apply to fraud.
Scientists mix oil and water.
In other news, record sub-zero temperatures in hell.
Yes, but before you do, make sure you watch this movie trailer:
Comedian
STEWARDESS: Well, we had a choice: fish or chicken. DOCTOR: Yes, yes, I remember. I had lasagna.
I can understand a few things, but Credit Card Numbers? WTF does the government need with that?
...but.... Smegways explode when they tip over.
Couldn't find another parade to rain on, could you? :D
Yeah, gotta love how those programs get feedback on how many characters it "got right". ;)
Ah-ah-ah-ah! You didn't say the magic word!
The best thing I can think of is a parse of the URLs and a double-check against URLs in previous posts. Of course, that leaves out the same news reported with different links, and a slew of other problems; the big problem is the subjectivity.
I'd really like to know how such a subjective thing could be coded into slashdot.
Yes, exactly right. But TCP is one level higher in the networking scheme than routers are, which is why the author is pushing his new algorithm in my opinion -- an additional form of congestion control.
It's a continuing process, really. There are several protocols and algorithms to reduce congestion (not the least of which is a higher-level protocol known as TCP ;)). I think what's going on here is the author is trying to push a new method to control congestion at the network (routing) level.
Frankly, I'm surprised this is considered news; I learned it in a networking course on my way to a CS degree. I can only assume that the author is trying to push a new algorithm for congestion control and is using "selfish routing" as a marketing scheme. The thing is, I can't seem to find the suggested reprieve.
Ahh, here it is:
I was about to post something along those lines when I noted your post. I wonder if, perhaps, there is some miscommunication and assumption going on here? What really is the difference between strong and weak typing?
Yes, I was aware of that, but Jython is slower than either language alone, IME. I have no real desire to code in python to call Java SWT (for example) which in turn only calls native widgets itself. It's a double-wrapper that would unnecessarily slow down GUI performance.
:D Talk about a lose-lose situation...
I sure as hell wouldn't use python to call Swing...
No what I meant was that I would like to see some (very thin!) wrappers in python for native OS widgets, sorta like SWT. wxWindows just doesn't cut it, IMO.
Of course it's a reason to rejoice!
;)
Of course, I'd prefer the revers. I'd rather have python become more Java-like in terms of its standard library... like, say, a GUI library?