This whole thing might be a nice way for companies to pool together for a legal fight.
Or to abolish the whole software patent system because it doesn't serve its purpose. Patents in software are only a tool used by big companies to squeeze money out of the little ones, crushing competition.
This is a case where a well recognized term "GNU/Linux" for the whole OS and Linux for the kernel would be good. Mixing the two is a bad thing and has been used by SCO.
from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html# IntellectualProperty
Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as ``intellectual property''---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about ``copyright,'' or about ``patents,'' or about ``trademarks.''
The term ``intellectual property'' carries a hidden assumption---that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property.
When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be. Basing your thinking on this analogy is tantamount to ignoring that difference. (Even the US legal system does not entirely accept the analogy, since it does not treat copyrights or patents like physical object property rights.)
If you don't want to limit yourself to this way of thinking, it is best to avoid using the term ``intellectual property'' in your words and thoughts.
``Intellectual property'' is also an unwise generalization. The term is a catch-all that lumps together several disparate legal systems, including copyright, patents, trademarks, and others, which have very little in common. These systems of law originated separately, cover different activities, operate in different ways, and raise different public policy issues. If you learn a fact about copyright law, you would do well to assume it does not apply to patent law, since that is almost always so.
Since these laws are so different, the term ``intellectual property'' is an invitation to simplistic thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager common aspect of these disparate laws, which is that they establish monopolies that can be bought and sold, and ignore their substance--the different restrictions they place on the public and the different consequences that result. At that broad level, you can't even see the specific public policy issues raised by copyright law, or the different issues raised by patent law, or any of the others. Thus, any opinion about ``intellectual property'' is almost surely foolish.
If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, copyrights and trademarks, or even learn what these laws require, the first step is to forget that you ever heard the term ``intellectual property'' and treat them as unrelated subjects. To give clear information and encourage clear thinking, never speak or write about ``intellectual property''; instead, present the topic as copyright, patents, or whichever specific law you are discussing.
According to Professor Mark Lemley of the University of Texas Law School, the widespread use of term "intellectual property" is a recent fad, arising from the 1967 founding of the World Intellectual Property Organization. (See footnote 123 in his March 1997 book review, in the Texas Law Review, of Romantic Authorship and the Rhetoric of Property by James Boyle.) WIPO represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents and trademarks, and lobbies governments to increase their power. One WIPO treaty follows the lines of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been used to censor useful free software packages in the US.
And not just tools. The GNU part in GNU/Linux consists not only of tools but crucial system libraries such as the C library. GNU has its extensions also there. And of course the GCC has its own features. This is not much of a problem because GNU is Free and it runs under different platforms and kernels.
This is different. I think that having corporate support behind DVD viewing in Linux legitimizes it more. No longer are we using DeCSS based software in this case. We are now using a commercial product that even the media companies (film studios) support to a degree.
The problem with viewing DVDs is not the lack of proprietary applications playing them but the lack of legal Free Sofware DVD player. One proprietary app isn't what I call support behind watching DVDs on a Free OS. I continue to use illegal (at least in USA) CSS decrypters because I don't infect my computer with non-free software.
But they want someone with 10 to 15 years of Linux experience. Kind of like the postings for Java jobs that only Gosling could qualify for.
That is true if you are talking about the kernel, linux which hasn't been around as long as the other core technologies which are now used in GNU/Linux systems, like X11R6, GNU userland etc. etc. You know, the starting point of this free software thing isn't linux 0.01, it is RMS's GNU manifesto.
The term ``software industry'' encourages people to imagine that software is always developed by a sort of factory and then delivered to consumers. The free software community shows this is not the case. Software businesses exist, and various businesses develop free and/or non-free software, but those that develop free software are not like factories.
The term ``industry'' is being used as propaganda by advocates of software patents. They call software development ``industry'' and then try to argue that this means it should be subject to patent monopolies. The European Parliament, rejecting software patents in 2003, voted to define ``industry'' as ``automated production of material goods''.
Hardware vs. Software is starting to be viewed as the last outpost of the fight to save capitalism in the Software industry.
Free Software/Open Source Software is capitalism at its best. Proprietary software relies on a "limited" (almost forever) copying monopoly in their business model. F/OSS instead encourages competition because the source is out there and everyone is in the same position as the original coder.
F/OSS DOESN'T remove the money from the IT field. There is much money to make from custom software which is never released. Or making add-ons to existing F/OSS software packages.
Open source is one start, the idea of knowledge as a common good, to be shared not just because superior products result from open standards, but because freedom is a basic human need, like food or air.
That "superior products" thing belongs to Open Source. The part which I bolded does not. OSS guys tell you to use non-free software if there isn't a OS replacement. Linus himself uses proprietary BitSomething. Open Source is a software development model, Free Software (www.gnu.org/philosophy) is a philosophy.
But it's of course a bad thing as well because this might be the beginning of a trend of having commercial software being stuffed down our throats with each distro.
There is nothing bad with good free software developed for money. Many companies code free software for profit, like specific features for a client. If you are meaning non-free, proprietary software then say it.
No news. MPlayer works well and is also Free. The article should mention clearly that this is only for x86 and non-free. Open Source/Free Software can be also commercial. Think about Redhat. This is more advertisement than an article.
The GPL was created by FSF for the GNU project which is about Free Software. Open Source DIDN'T EXIST when the GPL was created. Open Source is a relatively new marketing term for Free Software without the talk about freedom.
-Operating systems for the rest of us
GNU was founded in 80's to create a Free operating system. It is the idea of freedom and cooperation which brought to you the GNU/Linux OS, not open source.
Countless open standards
Free standards are a good thing, I agree. Open is a quite vague word. A a patented standard can be "open" if its usage requires only a fixed fee.
nVidia might want to be sure that no one runs with broken drivers, then thinks nVidia cards are all junk, when in reality some guy made a few "improvements" that broke things, and distributed the changed version anyway.
NVIDIA could register a trademark for their official Open Source driver build and disallow the use of the trademark on the builds which are modified. The Apache does it like that, modified versions aren't "Apache" anymore.
1) nVidia's drivers contain large amounts of software that is better than any of their competition. They spent money developing this, and they want to milk the competitive edge it gives them. And that is okay.
Even if their OpenGL implementation was superior they wouldn't have to release it under a Free license. There is Mesa which is OSS and probably Free. They only have to tell us how to program the chip.
I am not an expert, but NVIDIA doesn't have to Free their OpenGL implementation, only tell us how to program the chip so that we can use an existing OpenGL implementation (Mesa) on it.
If that would be true there wouldn't be any copyright legislation. It would be just plain stealing. But the thing is that we have a copyright legislation. And it doesn't say that copying is stealing.
It involves taking something that someone else has a property right in.
Taking? If there are n copies of a certain copyrighted work and I make one illegal copy there are now n+1 works, not n. Nobody has taken anything. Only a copyright infringement has been done. Analogies from the physical world fit badly to copyrights.
Slashdot Mirror
This whole thing might be a nice way for companies to pool together for a legal fight.
Or to abolish the whole software patent system because it doesn't serve its purpose. Patents in software are only a tool used by big companies to squeeze money out of the little ones, crushing competition.
This is a case where a well recognized term "GNU/Linux" for the whole OS and Linux for the kernel would be good. Mixing the two is a bad thing and has been used by SCO.
from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html# IntellectualProperty
Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as ``intellectual property''---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about ``copyright,'' or about ``patents,'' or about ``trademarks.''
The term ``intellectual property'' carries a hidden assumption---that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property.
When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be. Basing your thinking on this analogy is tantamount to ignoring that difference. (Even the US legal system does not entirely accept the analogy, since it does not treat copyrights or patents like physical object property rights.)
If you don't want to limit yourself to this way of thinking, it is best to avoid using the term ``intellectual property'' in your words and thoughts.
``Intellectual property'' is also an unwise generalization. The term is a catch-all that lumps together several disparate legal systems, including copyright, patents, trademarks, and others, which have very little in common. These systems of law originated separately, cover different activities, operate in different ways, and raise different public policy issues. If you learn a fact about copyright law, you would do well to assume it does not apply to patent law, since that is almost always so.
Since these laws are so different, the term ``intellectual property'' is an invitation to simplistic thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager common aspect of these disparate laws, which is that they establish monopolies that can be bought and sold, and ignore their substance--the different restrictions they place on the public and the different consequences that result. At that broad level, you can't even see the specific public policy issues raised by copyright law, or the different issues raised by patent law, or any of the others. Thus, any opinion about ``intellectual property'' is almost surely foolish.
If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, copyrights and trademarks, or even learn what these laws require, the first step is to forget that you ever heard the term ``intellectual property'' and treat them as unrelated subjects. To give clear information and encourage clear thinking, never speak or write about ``intellectual property''; instead, present the topic as copyright, patents, or whichever specific law you are discussing.
According to Professor Mark Lemley of the University of Texas Law School, the widespread use of term "intellectual property" is a recent fad, arising from the 1967 founding of the World Intellectual Property Organization. (See footnote 123 in his March 1997 book review, in the Texas Law Review, of Romantic Authorship and the Rhetoric of Property by James Boyle.) WIPO represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents and trademarks, and lobbies governments to increase their power. One WIPO treaty follows the lines of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been used to censor useful free software packages in the US.
And not just tools. The GNU part in GNU/Linux consists not only of tools but crucial system libraries such as the C library. GNU has its extensions also there. And of course the GCC has its own features. This is not much of a problem because GNU is Free and it runs under different platforms and kernels.
We are rapidly approaching the point at which UNIX is a Linux-like operating system
You mean GNU-like? Linux is only a kernel, you know.
GNU's Not Unix Unix :)
This is different. I think that having corporate support behind DVD viewing in Linux legitimizes it more. No longer are we using DeCSS based software in this case. We are now using a commercial product that even the media companies (film studios) support to a degree.
The problem with viewing DVDs is not the lack of proprietary applications playing them but the lack of legal Free Sofware DVD player. One proprietary app isn't what I call support behind watching DVDs on a Free OS. I continue to use illegal (at least in USA) CSS decrypters because I don't infect my computer with non-free software.
But they want someone with 10 to 15 years of Linux experience. Kind of like the postings for Java jobs that only Gosling could qualify for.
That is true if you are talking about the kernel, linux which hasn't been around as long as the other core technologies which are now used in GNU/Linux systems, like X11R6, GNU userland etc. etc. You know, the starting point of this free software thing isn't linux 0.01, it is RMS's GNU manifesto.
So, as a recent convert to Christianity, I find a great moral symbol in the fact that I run 100% open source at home, as opposed to corporate mammon.
What is your opinion on Free Software funded by greedy corporations?
- A patent granted by the USPTO does that mean that the patent is valid only in the USA or all over the world?
It is valid only in the USA. You have to file separate patent application for each country.
MOD THE PARENT UP!
Hardware vs. Software is starting to be viewed as the last outpost of the fight to save capitalism in the Software industry.
Free Software/Open Source Software is capitalism at its best. Proprietary software relies on a "limited" (almost forever) copying monopoly in their business model. F/OSS instead encourages competition because the source is out there and everyone is in the same position as the original coder. F/OSS DOESN'T remove the money from the IT field. There is much money to make from custom software which is never released. Or making add-ons to existing F/OSS software packages.
Those are GNU, not linux.
Open source is one start, the idea of knowledge as a common good, to be shared not just because superior products result from open standards, but because freedom is a basic human need, like food or air.
That "superior products" thing belongs to Open Source. The part which I bolded does not. OSS guys tell you to use non-free software if there isn't a OS replacement. Linus himself uses proprietary BitSomething. Open Source is a software development model, Free Software (www.gnu.org/philosophy) is a philosophy.
That is not the point. I meant that commercial companies can produce Free code for money.
But it's of course a bad thing as well because this might be the beginning of a trend of having commercial software being stuffed down our throats with each distro.
There is nothing bad with good free software developed for money. Many companies code free software for profit, like specific features for a client. If you are meaning non-free, proprietary software then say it.
No news. MPlayer works well and is also Free. The article should mention clearly that this is only for x86 and non-free. Open Source/Free Software can be also commercial. Think about Redhat. This is more advertisement than an article.
But the term Open Source didn't.
Open source gave us: -The GPL
The GPL was created by FSF for the GNU project which is about Free Software. Open Source DIDN'T EXIST when the GPL was created. Open Source is a relatively new marketing term for Free Software without the talk about freedom.
-Operating systems for the rest of us
GNU was founded in 80's to create a Free operating system. It is the idea of freedom and cooperation which brought to you the GNU/Linux OS, not open source.
Countless open standards
Free standards are a good thing, I agree. Open is a quite vague word. A a patented standard can be "open" if its usage requires only a fixed fee.
Tux!
That I can agree.
nVidia might want to be sure that no one runs with broken drivers, then thinks nVidia cards are all junk, when in reality some guy made a few "improvements" that broke things, and distributed the changed version anyway.
NVIDIA could register a trademark for their official Open Source driver build and disallow the use of the trademark on the builds which are modified. The Apache does it like that, modified versions aren't "Apache" anymore.
1) nVidia's drivers contain large amounts of software that is better than any of their competition. They spent money developing this, and they want to milk the competitive edge it gives them. And that is okay.
Even if their OpenGL implementation was superior they wouldn't have to release it under a Free license. There is Mesa which is OSS and probably Free. They only have to tell us how to program the chip.
I am not an expert, but NVIDIA doesn't have to Free their OpenGL implementation, only tell us how to program the chip so that we can use an existing OpenGL implementation (Mesa) on it.
That means compatability
Aargh, not again. It is compatibility.
If that would be true there wouldn't be any copyright legislation. It would be just plain stealing. But the thing is that we have a copyright legislation. And it doesn't say that copying is stealing.
Gnu tools
The GNU part is more than some tools. It is an unix like OS framework which contains also many libraries.
better price on commercial alternatives.
You mean non-free? Free Software/Open Source can also be commercial. There is money involved in support and in coding new features.
It involves taking something that someone else has a property right in.
Taking? If there are n copies of a certain copyrighted work and I make one illegal copy there are now n+1 works, not n. Nobody has taken anything. Only a copyright infringement has been done. Analogies from the physical world fit badly to copyrights.