Who pays? How do you track the number of distributed copies and pay?
Perhaps that's what the FSF should be working out, instead of pushing GPL v3.
Software patents are nothing like actually collecting rent because they provide no utility to the one paying.
I often chuckle when people justify torrenting movies on the basis that Hollywood movies are so bad these days it's not worth paying for them. The irony that if they were so bad, why are they downloading seem lost on them.
Likewise, if the patented idea has no utility, then don't use it. If it does then pay for it.
If you're Microsoft, Apple, or a proprietary software vendor of any, or a holder of software patents, then yes Open Source and Free Software are "broken" to you.
I'm a proprietary software developer. More to the point, I believe that when people labour towards something that is consumed by others, they should be paid. I don't understand why people here are so desperate to devalue computer programmers so their work is worth nothing.
Of course, everyone's had or at least seen reviews like that. But if the app is well made, they fade into irrelevance next to the good reviews.
Think of it from the point of view of a customer: are you not going to buy because amongst the good reviews there's a few one star reviews from people that are obviously clueless?
So for a program covered by the GPLv3, who pays? The developer? The person who redistributes it? The end user?
So your saying there's a problem with GPL v3. So blame RMS.
FRAND on software (and software patents in general) imposes costs that are little more than rent-seeking
Landlords are entitled to collect rent. Patent holders are entitled to collect royalties. If the OSS can't cope with that reality, then again it's the fault of the person(s) who wrote the license so many OSS projects use.
Either that or the whole concept of OSS is broken.
Imposing mandatory royalties on standards makes it impossible to comply with the standard in FOSS projects. You end up with patent holders capable of dictating who can and cannot use the software.
That's incorrect. The ND of FRAND is for non-discriminatory. Everyone can use it, so long as they pay.
Again there is nothing intrinsic to open source that means no cost. If the OSS community has munged those two dissimilar things together, then that's how it's broken.
This is you simply being a troll.
No, it's me pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.
Clothes is more of a what-you-see-is-what-you-get scenario. Unless I suppose you purchase on-line. In which case, for sure you should be looking at reviews.
I'm also an app developer with apps on there. And I don't recognise your description. Before Apple limited reviews to only the people who'd actually purchased the app, the review system was hopelessly broken. But not now.
Sure, it's frustrating as a developer not to be able to respond to misguided reviews. But think about what it would be like if developers could respond... the review section would turn into a comments section. And we know from elsewhere on the internet how hateful they can become.
The proper way for a developer to respond is not to justify himself in an answer, but to improve the software, or the description of it. e.g. If a reviewer marks down because he thinks the app can't do something when it can, then the response to that is to find a way to make that functionality more discoverable.
App reviews are not broken. If you look at the best software, you'll see the reviews are vastly dominated by 4 & 5 stars. Sure you'll get some misguided or just plain stupid reviewers, but their 1 star reviews will be bashed into insignificance by the good reviews.
I always read App Store reviews before I buy. And I find they don't steer me wrong.
But one final note: when I said read reviews, I didn't limit it to app store reviews. If the app costs more than the minimum, or I have any doubts, then I check out reviews by googling too.
Yep. Anyone who uses a GPL'd free product should expect that if/when he passes that free item on, he doesn't charge for it.
So that's one software license you take seriously.
But what about people that don't agree? Surely they have as much right as you to ignore the license and do what they like. If they are developing some closed source software for example, why shouldn't they copy code from something GPLed? So long as it fits their personal morality.
Remember, I'm primarily arguing against unbridled corporate greed with my rants against current copyright law
Fine. But this story is about the App Store, where the majority of apps are from independent developers who are charging 99c.
In the sci fi book I mentioned in a different post I recall adults, the older the more likely, constantly recording young people to deter vandalism, robberies, muggings, etc. Things devolved to the point where the smallest infraction of a rule led to a video being submitted to the police.
In the absence of a government or state, you would still have physical property. If you have a loaf of bread, I would have to take it by force or coercion. Once I took it from you, you would no longer have that bread and I would.
You're confusing the differing concepts of property and possession. A thief possesses a stolen object, but doesn't own it.
seeking the protection of a warlord seems like a common choice.
You probably want to ease up on the WoW and LoTR.
In this same absence of state or government, you walk by me whistling a little tune you made up. I start whistling the same tune. You can keep whistling your tune even though I have "stolen" it from you. You can try to protect your "tune" by not whistling it, but as soon as you share it - it is free.
That's right. It's more like rape. After all, the rapist merely gets his fun by ignoring the woman's right to say no. But he doesn't actually take anything physical.
If/when we fix copyright laws, then I might respect them more. You want copyrights for software? Five years. You want copyrights for music, books, and movies? Fifteen years. That's it, no more. Software is all but useless from an economic point of view after five years. Works of fiction never lose value, but still, fifteen years. Original research in a scientific field, I might go to 30 years. Genuine R&D, that takes dump truck loads of money? I might go thirty years on that as well.
I agree with you on the length of copyrights. They are way too long. And I'm absolutely with you on taking civil disobedience action to make the point.
So, what you need to do is only copy-without- permission software that is older than 5 years. And music, books and movies that are older than 15 years.
If you copy new stuff, then that just makes it clear you're just a pirate, not a principled opposer of unfair copyright.
In fact this argument about unfair copyright lengths has been used so often I keep expecting someone to launch a sight that lists, possibly with links to download, items that are beyond a certain age. To facilitate this principled civil disobedience. But I don't see any. Which makes me think that maybe this argument is really just a lot of hot air, designed to make the proposer feel better about his piracy.
Hey man, like, that car is just made from a combination of atoms. Atoms don't belong to anyone. They were born in the big bang, and rain from the skies or are dug from mother earth. We have just as much right to that car as anyone else does. Let's take it for a ride.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that when people labour towards something that is consumed by others, they should be paid.
You also are defending the status quo. Unsurprisingly, there are people who disagree with it.
Clearly not people that need work to put food on the table.
That's not at all what is happening here.
Really and truly, it is.
Of course they do. Everybody does except for the USA.
Who pays? How do you track the number of distributed copies and pay?
Perhaps that's what the FSF should be working out, instead of pushing GPL v3.
Software patents are nothing like actually collecting rent because they provide no utility to the one paying.
I often chuckle when people justify torrenting movies on the basis that Hollywood movies are so bad these days it's not worth paying for them. The irony that if they were so bad, why are they downloading seem lost on them.
Likewise, if the patented idea has no utility, then don't use it. If it does then pay for it.
If you're Microsoft, Apple, or a proprietary software vendor of any, or a holder of software patents, then yes Open Source and Free Software are "broken" to you.
I'm a proprietary software developer. More to the point, I believe that when people labour towards something that is consumed by others, they should be paid. I don't understand why people here are so desperate to devalue computer programmers so their work is worth nothing.
Of course, everyone's had or at least seen reviews like that. But if the app is well made, they fade into irrelevance next to the good reviews.
Think of it from the point of view of a customer: are you not going to buy because amongst the good reviews there's a few one star reviews from people that are obviously clueless?
So for a program covered by the GPLv3, who pays? The developer? The person who redistributes it? The end user?
So your saying there's a problem with GPL v3. So blame RMS.
FRAND on software (and software patents in general) imposes costs that are little more than rent-seeking
Landlords are entitled to collect rent. Patent holders are entitled to collect royalties. If the OSS can't cope with that reality, then again it's the fault of the person(s) who wrote the license so many OSS projects use.
Either that or the whole concept of OSS is broken.
Imposing mandatory royalties on standards makes it impossible to comply with the standard in FOSS projects. You end up with patent holders capable of dictating who can and cannot use the software.
That's incorrect. The ND of FRAND is for non-discriminatory. Everyone can use it, so long as they pay.
Again there is nothing intrinsic to open source that means no cost. If the OSS community has munged those two dissimilar things together, then that's how it's broken.
This is you simply being a troll.
No, it's me pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.
No. Read the link. China has it's own units.
Open Source doesn't imply no fees.
Is the truth that OSS is all about getting something for nothing?
Cut out the intermediary step. Adopt the units of the future world superpower now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_units_of_measurement
If FRAND patents exclude OSS, then there's something wrong with OSS.
Cars, definitely.
Clothes is more of a what-you-see-is-what-you-get scenario. Unless I suppose you purchase on-line. In which case, for sure you should be looking at reviews.
I'm also an app developer with apps on there. And I don't recognise your description. Before Apple limited reviews to only the people who'd actually purchased the app, the review system was hopelessly broken. But not now.
Sure, it's frustrating as a developer not to be able to respond to misguided reviews. But think about what it would be like if developers could respond... the review section would turn into a comments section. And we know from elsewhere on the internet how hateful they can become.
The proper way for a developer to respond is not to justify himself in an answer, but to improve the software, or the description of it. e.g. If a reviewer marks down because he thinks the app can't do something when it can, then the response to that is to find a way to make that functionality more discoverable.
App reviews are not broken. If you look at the best software, you'll see the reviews are vastly dominated by 4 & 5 stars. Sure you'll get some misguided or just plain stupid reviewers, but their 1 star reviews will be bashed into insignificance by the good reviews.
I always read App Store reviews before I buy. And I find they don't steer me wrong.
But one final note: when I said read reviews, I didn't limit it to app store reviews. If the app costs more than the minimum, or I have any doubts, then I check out reviews by googling too.
Yep. Anyone who uses a GPL'd free product should expect that if/when he passes that free item on, he doesn't charge for it.
So that's one software license you take seriously.
But what about people that don't agree? Surely they have as much right as you to ignore the license and do what they like. If they are developing some closed source software for example, why shouldn't they copy code from something GPLed? So long as it fits their personal morality.
Remember, I'm primarily arguing against unbridled corporate greed with my rants against current copyright law
Fine. But this story is about the App Store, where the majority of apps are from independent developers who are charging 99c.
In the sci fi book I mentioned in a different post I recall adults, the older the more likely, constantly recording young people to deter vandalism, robberies, muggings, etc. Things devolved to the point where the smallest infraction of a rule led to a video being submitted to the police.
That's not sci fi, that's Japan.
Software is another matter - which is why I'm a Linux guy.
Do you abide by the GPL and believe others should?
As with any purchase, you're a fool if you don't look at reviews before you buy.
There's nothing about jailbreaking that implies the device wasn't bought from new. No more than chipping a console.
And they don't cost upwards of a thousand dollars. Even without a contract and unlocked, iPhones range from $450 to $849, new.
And indeed theres nothing wrong with you using the commercial software that's on the libraries computers.
However, go to the library and copy the commercial software, or photocopy an entire book, and you're stealing.
In the absence of a government or state, you would still have physical property. If you have a loaf of bread, I would have to take it by force or coercion. Once I took it from you, you would no longer have that bread and I would.
You're confusing the differing concepts of property and possession. A thief possesses a stolen object, but doesn't own it.
seeking the protection of a warlord seems like a common choice.
You probably want to ease up on the WoW and LoTR.
In this same absence of state or government, you walk by me whistling a little tune you made up. I start whistling the same tune. You can keep whistling your tune even though I have "stolen" it from you. You can try to protect your "tune" by not whistling it, but as soon as you share it - it is free.
How about a joke?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YE9Kthyaco
They can *ask* to be paid, but there is no right to get paid or "Should".
Indeed, it's called offering it for sale. But they certainly do have a right to get paid if you take a copy of the software.
The distinction is that requiring that you get money for your effort is borderline extortion.
Workers are applying extortion by expecting to get paid for their efforts? Have you ever had a job in your life?
That's the trouble with open source fans. They know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
That's right. It's more like rape. After all, the rapist merely gets his fun by ignoring the woman's right to say no. But he doesn't actually take anything physical.
If/when we fix copyright laws, then I might respect them more. You want copyrights for software? Five years. You want copyrights for music, books, and movies? Fifteen years. That's it, no more. Software is all but useless from an economic point of view after five years. Works of fiction never lose value, but still, fifteen years. Original research in a scientific field, I might go to 30 years. Genuine R&D, that takes dump truck loads of money? I might go thirty years on that as well.
I agree with you on the length of copyrights. They are way too long. And I'm absolutely with you on taking civil disobedience action to make the point.
So, what you need to do is only copy-without- permission software that is older than 5 years. And music, books and movies that are older than 15 years.
If you copy new stuff, then that just makes it clear you're just a pirate, not a principled opposer of unfair copyright.
In fact this argument about unfair copyright lengths has been used so often I keep expecting someone to launch a sight that lists, possibly with links to download, items that are beyond a certain age. To facilitate this principled civil disobedience. But I don't see any. Which makes me think that maybe this argument is really just a lot of hot air, designed to make the proposer feel better about his piracy.
Hey man, like, that car is just made from a combination of atoms. Atoms don't belong to anyone. They were born in the big bang, and rain from the skies or are dug from mother earth. We have just as much right to that car as anyone else does. Let's take it for a ride.
No same empirical fact ,the Smartphone replaced the mp3 player.
Of course it did numb nuts. And you were right only when you said that iPhone had done it.
Remember, iPhone is still the biggest selling smartphone. Nothing outsells it. There is no "iPod Killer" other than iPhone.
iPod is a device, not an OS. Android is an OS, not a device.
Non-sequitur.
And in case you didn't realise it, it's a fraction of iPhone sales.