Rail tickets non-transferrable? Here (NL) they most certainly are!:-)
That OEM versions of software are for that PC only is still something which they're not sure of if it will hold up in (EU?) courts.
Problem 1 is that when buying the PC nobody tells you that you cannot use that Windows installation on any other computer.
Problem 2 is that if nobody can prevent you from buying an Opel, remove its carburator and try to put it in a Volkswagen (I said TRY!;-) So why would this be possible with PCs+software?
Problem 3 is that you would still need the installation CDs if your harddisk ever breaks down.
We could probably think of a couple of problems more;-)
I know what the dirty/clean room method entails, but I'm talking about _this_ particular project, like the music/graphics I have know idea of knowing that the code they are giving away freely is "clean". Like the artist they might not even know themselves!
Because too be honest I don't think the distinction is all that big, most programmers see a lot of code in their lives and I'm sure most of them can't remember where it all came from, what license it was under or if there even was a license. It could have been code from somebody that had seen code from somebody that had seen code from... etc. Not knowing the code was dirty is no defense as far as I know.
The difference is that you are normally exposed to a LOT more music than code and a LOT more people will be listening to what you are making so any unoriginal work will be found sooner while most code is private and very likely nobody will ever know if you used unclean code (you might not know yourself!).
And also with code it is very much possible that at some time somebody will open source code that is actually owned and maybe even patented by somebody else (with patents the code doesn't even have to be similar it just has to serve the same function). The potential harm is the same as far as I can see.
And Public Domain has already existed for hundreds of years which is just another term for giving away control of your work completely. So if art can be donated to the public domain why can't it be published under a license that says something like the GPL: if you make another work of art using this art you must the same license for your work as well.
Although I understand what you are trying to say I'm still not convinced that this hold true for every artistic expression. How does music (not song) convey beliefs and opinions? How does a painter's representation of a flower convey his beliefs and opinions? Maybe he could but maybe it's just music and maybe it's just an image of a flower. In those cases I still don't see why an artist could not say: sure, do with it whatever you like. There are enough examples where art uses older, existing art to make new works of art but most of the times this means they can only use art that has already lost its copyright protection or they have to pay for it.
I also think that your statement that (in my words) "art is vision, beliefs and opinions, software is utility" would not sit well with Open Source groups like for example the Mozilla Foundation which might say that they are expressing a lot of vision, beliefs and opinions through their code. They could not prevent Microsoft from taking their code and turning it into IE7 for example. And still they give their code away, knowing the risk that somebody will do something with it that they never intended. Let's just say that I have the feeling that the distinction between art and utility might not be as black & white as you seem to be making it. (NB: I know for example that the artwork for the game Max Payne 2 can be freely used for non-commerical purposes which seems great to me).
Sorry to see this is turning into a flamewar of sorts but I'm curious about your remark that RS himself thinks graphics, sounds and songs should not be free. Care to elaborate on that? I'm really curious as to the reasoning behind that.
Then they should think about it more becuase like with coding making a truly original work is next to impossible, all of us are standing on the shoulders of giants so to speak. So the ones taking liberally from the ones that co\ame before should maybe think about trying to give something back as well.;-)
Reading this I'm sure you know what you're talking about but I must say I don't immediately understand what you are trying to explain here. You are right about the clean room stuff but how would that work here? Because in this case I _do_ have access to the code and if that code, which is copyrighted (or better "copylefted") so if the code is somehow tainted I would be as well. Although I agree this would only affect coders and not users of the game the problem stil remains.
But coming back to the part that I don't understand: why could a musician, assuming his work is original, not copyleft his work just like the coders do? Exactly like coders expect their work to be copied and used by others (even better they encourage them to do so!) musicians could make music expecting others to use it if they like it.
Sure, but now you are referring to something much more abstract, I was referring, and I'm sure the parent was too, to a group of people working together in an organized way. And sure any OSS project can be run just as well as any billion-dollar company, but unlike billion dollar companies you can expect of them! Or at least that's how I see it.
I really don't understand what's up with you artsy types. Coders spend a zillion hours of their free time to make a free open source game just so others can enjoy it but you can't do the same for a bunch of notes? Sure, dream on that one day you'll be famous and you can sell the rights for some disgustingly large sum of money.
If you want to get into a project like this you have to get into the spirit of it and that means doing the work for the fun of it and let the entire world enoy it. It also means that YOU gotta show that you're a worthwhile addition to the team so that means making something you think could be used in the game. It also means being prepared to be shot down because your work doesn't fit their ideas (yet). This doesn't mean you should give up but instead that you should try again, talk with more people, get a feel for what they are trying to do.
And complaining about the lack of organisation in an open source project is silly. That's oly to be expected. If you want more organisation you'll have to prove that you would be a worthwhile addition to the team and do it yourself.
You see, THEY have already spent an insane amount of time on the project, you on the other hand haven't done anything yet so you haven't earned any "rights" yet. If you want them to notice you, to listen to you to even, you've gotta be prepared to do some hard work. (no promising to do hard work in the future if only they would listen to you first is not enough)
You're not trying hard enough imagining how you could work 110%! Try harder! Give it 200% and surely you wil succeed! (at least according to the CEO of my last company)
But like he explained as well, mistyping "Calafornea, USA" is not the same as mistyping "John Smyth" because there aren't 20.000 US states with sometimes highly similar names. I think that an "intelligent" system that in 2% of the cases sends mistyped messages to the wrong person is even worse than a dumb system that bounces your messages when you mistype the address.
BTW: I understand that you're trying to make a point about how people could think this, but in the same way it should be very easy to explain to people that e-mail addresses MUST be spelled 100% correctly to work.
I don't know what you have been smoking but this Aunt/Sweater thing must be the worst comparison I've ever seen;-)
First, open source software, using GPL, BSD or whatever license is NOT a gift. People are not "knitting this sweater" for you as a gift they are doing it for themselves.
Secondly, software is not a unique thing, it's something that can be easily copied which is something you can't do with a sweater.
And finally, I'm sure your Aunt would get mighty pissed if YOU would get rich selling HER sweaters without giving her anything in return!
Well it *is* kinda ironic to see an American company using "an excess in freedom of speech" as an avenue of attack. Seems like this much touted "freedom of speech" is fine as long it it applies only to yourself. It is like an American or European company using child labor in some Asian country, it's just wrong even though it might be legal there.
You mean exactly like the presidential codes where put in place so the military could not fire the missiles themselves?
We now know how well that worked.
As long as they don't perform another study on the effect of ringtone/coversations inside a movie theater instead of a train I would say their research is of as much value as enigma32's opinion in this case:-)
My personal opinion is that it is exactly the fact that people can't hear both sides of the conversation that is irritating them so much: they want (unconsiously or not) to hear what the other is saying as well!
Outdated by the standards of this day, but even the AmigaOS was way better than the pittyful excuse for an OS called Windows 3.x. It wasn't until Win95 that I even wanted to consider using a PC, in comparison to the rest of the systems out there it was just a piece of (expensive) crap.
Best media player for the platform? Ha! What a laugh. Seems that people are so brainwashed that they don't even recognize mediocrity when it slaps them in the face. The WMP doesn't even do fast forward or slow-mo for most of the video formats. But it does bombard you with a lot of nonsense from the moment it starts. It might not be the worst player (Real will probably win that one;-) but it sure as hell comes close for me.
I don't agree, I just think that ESR picked possibly the worst example that currently exists for novice Linux users. Like he said (in my own words): "it looks simple, but it ain't".
When I started using RedHat 8 there were 2 major stumbling blocks for me: Samba and CUPS. I find both of them a regular nightmare to configure (correctly).
How is agreeing to "automatically allow your software to be covered by a future revision of the GPL" burdensome? There is _nothing_ that you have to do for that, the only thing the license states is that a user of your product has the right to use a newer version of the GPL whenever he wants to.
And because the GPL itself disallows future versions of itself to be more restrictive you as a developer can rest assured that your code is "safe" (safely free).
But that's the point, it actually very easy to make it less "Free" the moment you allow things like this.
The LGPL for example has no effect on the rest of your software or the licenses you are using except when actually making changed to the LGPLed software itself. Even then the effect are contained to the LGPL code, only for that part of the code are you required to make the changes public.
With the new XFree86 license the entire product is affected. So this time it might be reasonably easy to adhere to the new license requirements, but who's to say they won't pose even more restrictions/make more demands next time? Demands that might seem simple enough but could be very costly for companies like Mandrake making distributions.
And that's exactly what (L)GPLed software protects you against: once GPLed the license can NOT be made more restrictive, not tomorrow, not ever. So the moment you make the choice to use GPLed software and make sure that it is compatible with whatever license you want to use you are also sure that it will forever remain that way (they can only give you more freedom to do with the software what you want, never less).
And it is exactly those assurances I need and want when using Open Source software. Because I don't want to have to make sure every time I use GPL software that they didn't use XFree86/BSD-like licenses which obligate me to read and understand them all to know what kinds of hoops I have to jump through to use their software. I just have to know about one: the GPL. Because it requires that all other software used will have to use compatible licenses. It might not be a big deal to you, but it is to me (and lots of others seeing the discussions here;-).
Because you can never make a license that says "no additional restrictions allowed except when they are harmless". And if you do allow additional restrictions where does that leave the "Free" in "Free Software"?
The GPL is very specific in that respect: you are not allowed to pose additional restrictions on the license and that is all done so you, as a user of Free Software, can be 100% sure that the software is and will always remain Free.
Slashdot Mirror
Rail tickets non-transferrable? Here (NL) they most certainly are! :-)
;-) So why would this be possible with PCs+software?
;-)
That OEM versions of software are for that PC only is still something which they're not sure of if it will hold up in (EU?) courts.
Problem 1 is that when buying the PC nobody tells you that you cannot use that Windows installation on any other computer.
Problem 2 is that if nobody can prevent you from buying an Opel, remove its carburator and try to put it in a Volkswagen (I said TRY!
Problem 3 is that you would still need the installation CDs if your harddisk ever breaks down.
We could probably think of a couple of problems more
Yes, you can read it here http://www.webwereld.nl/nieuws/20607.phtml but I hope you can read Dutch! :-)
Philips has since then said they would be happy as well if things remained the way they are now.
It must be pretty bad on the other side of the pond if you think the system here is worth feeling jealous about!
;-)
Wait a minute... Bush 2! OMG, you're right!
I know what the dirty/clean room method entails, but I'm talking about _this_ particular project, like the music/graphics I have know idea of knowing that the code they are giving away freely is "clean". Like the artist they might not even know themselves!
;-)
Because too be honest I don't think the distinction is all that big, most programmers see a lot of code in their lives and I'm sure most of them can't remember where it all came from, what license it was under or if there even was a license. It could have been code from somebody that had seen code from somebody that had seen code from... etc. Not knowing the code was dirty is no defense as far as I know.
The difference is that you are normally exposed to a LOT more music than code and a LOT more people will be listening to what you are making so any unoriginal work will be found sooner while most code is private and very likely nobody will ever know if you used unclean code (you might not know yourself!).
And also with code it is very much possible that at some time somebody will open source code that is actually owned and maybe even patented by somebody else (with patents the code doesn't even have to be similar it just has to serve the same function). The potential harm is the same as far as I can see.
And Public Domain has already existed for hundreds of years which is just another term for giving away control of your work completely. So if art can be donated to the public domain why can't it be published under a license that says something like the GPL: if you make another work of art using this art you must the same license for your work as well.
But I'm probably being naive
Although I understand what you are trying to say I'm still not convinced that this hold true for every artistic expression. How does music (not song) convey beliefs and opinions? How does a painter's representation of a flower convey his beliefs and opinions? Maybe he could but maybe it's just music and maybe it's just an image of a flower. In those cases I still don't see why an artist could not say: sure, do with it whatever you like. There are enough examples where art uses older, existing art to make new works of art but most of the times this means they can only use art that has already lost its copyright protection or they have to pay for it.
I also think that your statement that (in my words) "art is vision, beliefs and opinions, software is utility" would not sit well with Open Source groups like for example the Mozilla Foundation which might say that they are expressing a lot of vision, beliefs and opinions through their code. They could not prevent Microsoft from taking their code and turning it into IE7 for example. And still they give their code away, knowing the risk that somebody will do something with it that they never intended.
Let's just say that I have the feeling that the distinction between art and utility might not be as black & white as you seem to be making it.
(NB: I know for example that the artwork for the game Max Payne 2 can be freely used for non-commerical purposes which seems great to me).
Sorry to see this is turning into a flamewar of sorts but I'm curious about your remark that RS himself thinks graphics, sounds and songs should not be free. Care to elaborate on that? I'm really curious as to the reasoning behind that.
Then they should think about it more becuase like with coding making a truly original work is next to impossible, all of us are standing on the shoulders of giants so to speak. So the ones taking liberally from the ones that co\ame before should maybe think about trying to give something back as well. ;-)
Reading this I'm sure you know what you're talking about but I must say I don't immediately understand what you are trying to explain here. You are right about the clean room stuff but how would that work here? Because in this case I _do_ have access to the code and if that code, which is copyrighted (or better "copylefted") so if the code is somehow tainted I would be as well. Although I agree this would only affect coders and not users of the game the problem stil remains.
But coming back to the part that I don't understand: why could a musician, assuming his work is original, not copyleft his work just like the coders do? Exactly like coders expect their work to be copied and used by others (even better they encourage them to do so!) musicians could make music expecting others to use it if they like it.
I really don't understand what's up with you artsy types. Coders spend a zillion hours of their free time to make a free open source game just so others can enjoy it but you can't do the same for a bunch of notes? Sure, dream on that one day you'll be famous and you can sell the rights for some disgustingly large sum of money.
If you want to get into a project like this you have to get into the spirit of it and that means doing the work for the fun of it and let the entire world enoy it. It also means that YOU gotta show that you're a worthwhile addition to the team so that means making something you think could be used in the game. It also means being prepared to be shot down because your work doesn't fit their ideas (yet). This doesn't mean you should give up but instead that you should try again, talk with more people, get a feel for what they are trying to do.
And complaining about the lack of organisation in an open source project is silly. That's oly to be expected. If you want more organisation you'll have to prove that you would be a worthwhile addition to the team and do it yourself.
You see, THEY have already spent an insane amount of time on the project, you on the other hand haven't done anything yet so you haven't earned any "rights" yet. If you want them to notice you, to listen to you to even, you've gotta be prepared to do some hard work. (no promising to do hard work in the future if only they would listen to you first is not enough)
You're not trying hard enough imagining how you could work 110%! Try harder! Give it 200% and surely you wil succeed! (at least according to the CEO of my last company)
But like he explained as well, mistyping "Calafornea, USA" is not the same as mistyping "John Smyth" because there aren't 20.000 US states with sometimes highly similar names. I think that an "intelligent" system that in 2% of the cases sends mistyped messages to the wrong person is even worse than a dumb system that bounces your messages when you mistype the address.
BTW: I understand that you're trying to make a point about how people could think this, but in the same way it should be very easy to explain to people that e-mail addresses MUST be spelled 100% correctly to work.
I don't know what you have been smoking but this Aunt/Sweater thing must be the worst comparison I've ever seen ;-)
First, open source software, using GPL, BSD or whatever license is NOT a gift. People are not "knitting this sweater" for you as a gift they are doing it for themselves.
Secondly, software is not a unique thing, it's something that can be easily copied which is something you can't do with a sweater.
And finally, I'm sure your Aunt would get mighty pissed if YOU would get rich selling HER sweaters without giving her anything in return!
Well it *is* kinda ironic to see an American company using "an excess in freedom of speech" as an avenue of attack. Seems like this much touted "freedom of speech" is fine as long it it applies only to yourself. It is like an American or European company using child labor in some Asian country, it's just wrong even though it might be legal there.
You mean exactly like the presidential codes where put in place so the military could not fire the missiles themselves? We now know how well that worked.
As long as they don't perform another study on the effect of ringtone/coversations inside a movie theater instead of a train I would say their research is of as much value as enigma32's opinion in this case :-)
My personal opinion is that it is exactly the fact that people can't hear both sides of the conversation that is irritating them so much: they want (unconsiously or not) to hear what the other is saying as well!
Outdated by the standards of this day, but even the AmigaOS was way better than the pittyful excuse for an OS called Windows 3.x. It wasn't until Win95 that I even wanted to consider using a PC, in comparison to the rest of the systems out there it was just a piece of (expensive) crap.
Best media player for the platform? Ha! What a laugh. Seems that people are so brainwashed that they don't even recognize mediocrity when it slaps them in the face. The WMP doesn't even do fast forward or slow-mo for most of the video formats. But it does bombard you with a lot of nonsense from the moment it starts. It might not be the worst player (Real will probably win that one ;-) but it sure as hell comes close for me.
I don't agree, I just think that ESR picked possibly the worst example that currently exists for novice Linux users. Like he said (in my own words): "it looks simple, but it ain't". When I started using RedHat 8 there were 2 major stumbling blocks for me: Samba and CUPS. I find both of them a regular nightmare to configure (correctly).
And reset my uptime? No way! ;)
How is agreeing to "automatically allow your software to be covered by a future revision of the GPL" burdensome? There is _nothing_ that you have to do for that, the only thing the license states is that a user of your product has the right to use a newer version of the GPL whenever he wants to.
And because the GPL itself disallows future versions of itself to be more restrictive you as a developer can rest assured that your code is "safe" (safely free).
But that's the point, it actually very easy to make it less "Free" the moment you allow things like this. The LGPL for example has no effect on the rest of your software or the licenses you are using except when actually making changed to the LGPLed software itself. Even then the effect are contained to the LGPL code, only for that part of the code are you required to make the changes public. With the new XFree86 license the entire product is affected. So this time it might be reasonably easy to adhere to the new license requirements, but who's to say they won't pose even more restrictions/make more demands next time? Demands that might seem simple enough but could be very costly for companies like Mandrake making distributions. And that's exactly what (L)GPLed software protects you against: once GPLed the license can NOT be made more restrictive, not tomorrow, not ever. So the moment you make the choice to use GPLed software and make sure that it is compatible with whatever license you want to use you are also sure that it will forever remain that way (they can only give you more freedom to do with the software what you want, never less). And it is exactly those assurances I need and want when using Open Source software. Because I don't want to have to make sure every time I use GPL software that they didn't use XFree86/BSD-like licenses which obligate me to read and understand them all to know what kinds of hoops I have to jump through to use their software. I just have to know about one: the GPL. Because it requires that all other software used will have to use compatible licenses. It might not be a big deal to you, but it is to me (and lots of others seeing the discussions here ;-).
Because you can never make a license that says "no additional restrictions allowed except when they are harmless". And if you do allow additional restrictions where does that leave the "Free" in "Free Software"? The GPL is very specific in that respect: you are not allowed to pose additional restrictions on the license and that is all done so you, as a user of Free Software, can be 100% sure that the software is and will always remain Free.