First, IANAL, that said... The GPL only covers software you distribute... The whole premise is that if I have acquired software (from someone else) with the rights covered by the GPL, and I give (sell or otherwise distribute to) you something derived from it, I must give you the same rights I had to the original. The GPL, however, seems to ONLY cover distribution, I can do whatever I want with GPL'ed code so long as I keep it to myself. This is a simplistic explanation, but one which appears to apply in almost all cases.
This guy seems to have missed it big time. His whole premise seems to be that production of shrink-wrap, for sale at CompUSA software (like Corel Products) is what most Companies do. I've been working in the corporate software development world for almost 10 years now, and I've NEVER produced a shrink wrap product. I don't know anyone who does. MOST software development exists to add content to services; commercial/industrial data collection, process control, stuff like that. The myth that corporate development of shrink-wrap software is what employs programmers is just that - a myth. The problem for the shrink-wrappers is that free software will soon replace it; if a few years, noone will be making shrink-wrap software. And if free software doesn't web-apps will. Its doomed. BTW, several people in my office use Corel, and they really like it -- seems if you use Windoze, its easy for you. Corel may be successful as a Linux distributor, but they WILL NOT BE AS A REPLACEMENT FOR M$. Noone will. The sooner they wake up and realize that the value they provide people is in an easy bridge from Windoze to Linux, and not as a provider of Office Apps, the sooner they will make money. Its the service and knowledge you have, NOT the fact that you have the magical program that noone else does.
The important thing about being paid for your work, is that the person doing the work is the one getting paid. Unfortunately, the distribution mechanism has provided a landscape in which musicians PAY the record company for the "privelege", of having their work distributed. The intellectual property isn't controlled by the creators, its controlled by the huge corporations who manage the means of distribution. These corporations entire livelihood depends on their ability to extort money from people, while convincing them that they are being done a favor. I'm all for people being paid for their work, I'm simply against large corporations preying on other people's work, holding it up as their own. Only the most fabulously successful musicians make money off of their CD's, most only make a little, and then only for a short time. THESE are the people who need their rights protected.. and not from Napster, they need protection from Time-Warner (and Lars).
Whatever the law says it is, that's what. Concepts of intellectual property, based in patent and copyright law have been applied to music (and film) since it became recordable. Because of recordable music, a musician could be heard by millions, not thousands, and hence make more money, even though each listener may be paying less. This seems all good... People pay less for music, and musicians make more. HOWEVER, what happened was that each musician had to get his recorded music to the listeners; record companies were established to fill the void, and exerted control over the distribution channel. The "way" to make money for a musician now is to convince a record company to distribute you... This record company, incendentally, has an agenda which may not include you, no matter how good you are. The entire system, however, rests on the concept that it takes large capital to distribute the music; the internet removes the capital expenditure from music distribution AND... The Record Company is irrelevant. Unfortunately, they may be irrelevant, but they're still funded. And they have help. Musicians who are successful in the current system, (That's You Lars), have interest in maintaining it, don't think that they represent musicians at large. Most musicians are just trying to pay the bills, knowing they have almost no chance of being picked up by a big label. BTW, they do it anyway.
The issue here is not the "rights" of children; its about the rights of parents. The fundamental problem is whether or not parents believe their children should be exposed to questionable material, but rather what material is questionable. Many people are opposed to their children being exposed to pornography, and that is their right; I, however, am far more concerned about my children being exposed to religious conversion rhetoric, violence, and racist points of view, not because I object to these points of view being expressed, but because I do not believe my children to be emotionally prepared to deal with these subjects. This is the point; parents in a free society must have the right to decide what subjects they believe their children are intellectually and emotionally mature enough to handle, and which they are not. The use of encrypted, or otherwise obscured URL lists as a method of blocking access to people does not provide anyone with this sort of control, because people not only do not know what they are blocking, they do not know what they are letting in. The use of broad categories such as "Pornography", "Hate Groups", "Violence", et cetera, not only fail to define what they include, but also fail to define what they exclude. Many questions can be asked here, "Are Hajime Sorayama paintings Pornography ?", "Is Hamas a Hate group ?", "Are pictures af Automobile Accidents Violence ?". I can't answer these questions for your children, and I appreciate you not answering them for mine.
Slashdot Mirror
First, IANAL, that said...
The GPL only covers software you distribute... The whole premise is that if I have acquired software (from someone else) with the rights covered by the GPL, and I give (sell or otherwise distribute to) you something derived from it, I must give you the same rights I had to the original. The GPL, however, seems to ONLY cover distribution, I can do whatever I want with GPL'ed code so long as I keep it to myself. This is a simplistic explanation, but one which appears to apply in almost all cases.
-- Rich
-- Rich
This guy seems to have missed it big time. His whole premise seems to be that production of shrink-wrap, for sale at CompUSA software (like Corel Products) is what most Companies do. I've been working in the corporate software development world for almost 10 years now, and I've NEVER produced a shrink wrap product. I don't know anyone who does. MOST software development exists to add content to services; commercial/industrial data collection, process control, stuff like that. The myth that corporate development of shrink-wrap software is what employs programmers is just that - a myth. The problem for the shrink-wrappers is that free software will soon replace it; if a few years, noone will be making shrink-wrap software. And if free software doesn't web-apps will. Its doomed. BTW, several people in my office use Corel, and they really like it -- seems if you use Windoze, its easy for you. Corel may be successful as a Linux distributor, but they WILL NOT BE AS A REPLACEMENT FOR M$. Noone will. The sooner they wake up and realize that the value they provide people is in an easy bridge from Windoze to Linux, and not as a provider of Office Apps, the sooner they will make money. Its the service and knowledge you have, NOT the fact that you have the magical program that noone else does.
--Rich
The important thing about being paid for your work, is that the person doing the work is the one getting paid. Unfortunately, the distribution mechanism has provided a landscape in which musicians PAY the record company for the "privelege", of having their work distributed. The intellectual property isn't controlled by the creators, its controlled by the huge corporations who manage the means of distribution. These corporations entire livelihood depends on their ability to extort money from people, while convincing them that they are being done a favor. I'm all for people being paid for their work, I'm simply against large corporations preying on other people's work, holding it up as their own. Only the most fabulously successful musicians make money off of their CD's, most only make a little, and then only for a short time. THESE are the people who need their rights protected .. and not from Napster, they need protection from Time-Warner (and Lars).
-- Rich
Whatever the law says it is, that's what. Concepts of intellectual property, based in patent and copyright law have been applied to music (and film) since it became recordable. Because of recordable music, a musician could be heard by millions, not thousands, and hence make more money, even though each listener may be paying less. This seems all good... People pay less for music, and musicians make more. HOWEVER, what happened was that each musician had to get his recorded music to the listeners; record companies were established to fill the void, and exerted control over the distribution channel. The "way" to make money for a musician now is to convince a record company to distribute you... This record company, incendentally, has an agenda which may not include you, no matter how good you are. The entire system, however, rests on the concept that it takes large capital to distribute the music; the internet removes the capital expenditure from music distribution AND... The Record Company is irrelevant. Unfortunately, they may be irrelevant, but they're still funded. And they have help. Musicians who are successful in the current system, (That's You Lars), have interest in maintaining it, don't think that they represent musicians at large. Most musicians are just trying to pay the bills, knowing they have almost no chance of being picked up by a big label. BTW, they do it anyway.
-- Rich
The issue here is not the "rights" of children; its about the rights of parents. The fundamental problem is whether or not parents believe their children should be exposed to questionable material, but rather what material is questionable. Many people are opposed to their children being exposed to pornography, and that is their right; I, however, am far more concerned about my children being exposed to religious conversion rhetoric, violence, and racist points of view, not because I object to these points of view being expressed, but because I do not believe my children to be emotionally prepared to deal with these subjects. This is the point; parents in a free society must have the right to decide what subjects they believe their children are intellectually and emotionally mature enough to handle, and which they are not. The use of encrypted, or otherwise obscured URL lists as a method of blocking access to people does not provide anyone with this sort of control, because people not only do not know what they are blocking, they do not know what they are letting in. The use of broad categories such as "Pornography", "Hate Groups", "Violence", et cetera, not only fail to define what they include, but also fail to define what they exclude. Many questions can be asked here, "Are Hajime Sorayama paintings Pornography ?", "Is Hamas a Hate group ?", "Are pictures af Automobile Accidents Violence ?". I can't answer these questions for your children, and I appreciate you not answering them for mine.
- Raymond F. Richardson