"The MPL license, like the BSD license, means a company can incorporate
Firefox into a commercial product"
I think you better read the
MPL again, it hardly looks anything like
BSD and more
importantly you cannot incorporate MPL code into a GPL program but you can with
the modified BSD license. You can see here what licenses are Free but
incompatible with the GPL.
"Most of the Mozilla code base is trilicensed under GPL, LGPL and MPL. So
although Firefox can't use GPL code, other GPL projects can use Firefox code."
This wikipedia article says
Mozilla is released under the MPL and the GPL which indicates you are correct
about it being released under the GPL. I don't see why they just don't
stick with the GPL, the MPL doesn't offer anything above what the GPL already
guarentees.
Uploading is not infrindgement as it is defined now in the copyright act, so ruled a judge in Canada.
Government said it is looking at changing the copyright act to make uploading infrindgement but until such time it is *legal*, and thus not criminal, to upload in Canada.
I don't see the record industry crumbeling in Canada, strange...huh? In fact, it maybe in a country's interest to remove copyright and let stupider countries chain their citizens to prevent copyright abuse while they get the content for free;).
"Because either you need it, or someone else needs it enough to pay you for it, or you think you can make money selling services related to the product. Or because you want fame and recognition."
This is very insightful, people will still need software made, and big business will pay to get it done.
In fact, since if all information is public domain, you could use the best tools for the problem. It wouldnt be about writing software from scratch then, but selecting and customizing software to the particular task.
"If you decide to break them instead, then don't be surprised when you're arrested."
People disrespect bad laws all the time, or would you, as a German, turn in Jews during WW2 since the government had a law that you do so?
Disrespecting laws also brings it to the public's attention, and allows for it to be revoked after being succesfully challenged.
"but distributing 2.7 terrabytes of music isn't the way to "fight" it."
Coroprations like the RIAA own the government. It is time to use anonymous P2P technology and bankrupt them into submission since, in America at least, the politians are bought and will stay bought until the RIAA has no more money to bribe with.
"they are unwilling to pay 99 cents to download a song, hey are unwilling to buy music at the retail level..."
By paying that '99' cents you are reinforcing the copyright regime, and the RIAA. Again, when you buy their music at the 'retail level' you are reinforcing the copyright regime, and the RIAA. It maybe morally imperative upon you, if you believe in the free flow of information, not to ever buy songs or music online or in the store.
At least not buy them until this RIAA copyright slavery is worked out one way or another.
"The production of information would then necessarily depend upon the initiative and regulation of the government."
First off, I said I dont know the details of how such a system would work, just that it seems to be becoming better in comparison to the RIAA's DRM, copyright police state and tech stagnant world.
It also does not mean government would necessarily have a say in content, it could simply pay content creators based on what the population votes for, etc.
This all assumes you cannot make money in a copyright free world, it seems people will still want to goto the theaters to see something even if it will be freely copied afterwards. Government could subsidize ticket prices to make up for not having the rental market cornered anymore etc.
Million different ideas, all seem better by the day vis a vis the RIAA end world view goal.
"Fortunately, the United States legal system is designed to work against mob rule like that. "
Yes, the constitution. Although, to the RIAA's dismay, there does not be a right to 'fuck up the country with DRM, police state tactics, and crippling technological innovation' in it.
"It's meant to protect minorities, even if the majority think that things should be otherwise."
You are comparing fat cat CEO's lining their pockets by denying the masses the right to information with the plight of minorities? I think that a disingenuous line of reasoning.
But by all means, shed some tears for these idea/information monopolists since their days of profiting by keeping the population ignorant and information starved will be over soon enough.
"This would remove all financial motivation for most worldly pursuits. Why write software? Why write a book? Why create music?"
Information would be a pure public good then. Like paying for national defense, you couldn't privately deliver such a good since people could enjoy national defense by allowing their neighbours to pay for the army. Everyone could similarily mooch though, thus a pure public good is necessarily provided for by government.
It is possible, if people do not want to create content although I see open source software alive and well without such incentives, government too can provide incentives, as they do with other pure public goods mentioned.
How would such a system work? Who knows, although it is rapidly looking better in comparison to the alternative DRM future, police state and tech phobic RIAA corporations' view.
"Boy, that Jaguar is overpriced: it's a few hundred dollars of steel, glass and leather. Therefore, I can steal it."
It's called 'copyright infrindgement' and not theft for an important reason, they are different. Physical property is different than ideas and information. You do realize that you are not deprived of your ideas when someone else thinks them, right?
"Don't give me that "copyright-infringement-is-not-stealing-because-I- don't-deprive-you-from-using-it." Do you scream when companies use GPL code without releasing the source? How is this different?"
Do I scream? Who are you talking to, I think you'll find a wide audience here at Slashdot. As for companies bullying individuals, you'll find people fighting against them by what ever means at their disposal including flinging called copyright laws in their face.
"Let's make a deal: Microsoft can close the Linux source and you can copy all the music you want."
Lets make a better deal, abolish copyright and then the GPL and all other licenses won't be necessary. I like that better, lets go for it all it takes is a simple majority vote to repeal the copyright bill and we are there.
"committing tons of theft of intellectual property"
Its called copyright infrindgement and is seperate and different from theft. No physical object is stolen and the 'owner' is not deprived of use of their 'property'.
"How does the headline submitter expect movie industries to make any money, if he endorses this behavior?"
Does this industry's fantasy 'right' to profit trumpet the peoples' right to freedom of information? Their fantasy 'right' to profit include turning society into a DRM police state and blocking new technology?
Their right to profit, if it exists at all, comes secondary to the will of the people. Copyright is a mere bill that can be revoked with a majority at any time, and that time seems sooner then ever.
" People trading in illegal media are not "helpless", they're criminals."
That's a little too simplistic, esp. since we are talking about copyright which is an artifical line drawn in the sand.
Draw it else where, at say 0 years and abolish it altogether. Since copyright is law, and law can be changed by the people, we can change it if they continue to harass the population.
The small mogols will find their quest for profit by stifeling new technology and turning society into a copyright police state will not be tollerated.
No, don't want to get sued then *change* the law. Let us make copyright 0 years. The people can make it any length they wish since copyright is an artifical creation of law.
I may settle for 14 years though, if they beg us enough;).
"The companies are planning to work together on technology that will secure
this content, she said."
Here is a clue, if I can view it then it is not secure nor will it ever be
secure enough.
DRM is the crazy idea of giving me the content, and also the key to view it, but
though obfuscation somehow hide the decrypt process.
It won't work in
the long run.
Jtem seems to not realize that if you made a deritive of a GPLed work it does not have to be distributed unless you distribute the binaries.
I.e. I can make *MY* own version of LINUX, put in breath taking functionality, and as long as I use it only on my computer, or at my organization then I have *NO* obligation to release the source to anyone *UNLESS* I give away the binary file to an outside 3rd party.
"Can open source and closed standards work together?
No they can't really, and even if it were possible why wouldn't people just use Eclipse?
"Under such a scheme Sun could maintain control of the Java API but allow open implementations."
Sun never learns. When they got into fight over java with Mircrosoft the result was MS making.NET. When will Sun decide to open Java up when Java becomes as much as an underdog/hasbeen as Solaris.
No one cares anymore Sun, the community is just routing around you and soon you will be insignificant.
Where is PCHDTV located? Why don't you all come to Canada (instead of Europe), especially the PCHDTV tuner company.
We have plenty of room ready, especially in preperation for the dogers after President Bush reinstates the draft to fight his war(s) (if gets back in).
Really a good post, but the pest part is this, I laughted out loud.
"The government is not their personal Guido."
I also agree that copyright infrindgement is an artifical crime. Copyright property is a state-sponsored temporary monopoly which creates a scarcity which does not correspond to any state in reality. An *artifical* scarcity which does not exist or would exist except as created by law.
"If you wrote music for a living and people were pirating your music, you wouldn't be upset that you were losing money?"
If i were writing music for a living, would I really expect the government to turn society into a police state just to protect potential profits I could make on a song? Answer: No.
"you are NOT entitled to own a copy for free if they aren't giving it away."
And i say you are NOT entitled to use force, yourself or via the government, to prevent people from thinking ideas or experiencing expressions copyrighted or not. If you think you are morally justified to use said force then I eagerly await your reply.
I see nothing morally relativist about asking for an arguement, a justification, as to why someone can morally prohibit another person, via the government, from thinking certain ideas or viewing certain materials (copyrighted materials of course).
Moral relativists do not need or ask for justification since they use their own belief system to self justify their behavior, in case you were ignorant about the term in question.
"As a US citizen, you have the right to disagree with laws and lobby for their repeal. You do not have to right to break them."
And if a law is immoral, you happily continue to obey? All law is are promulgated rules passed by the sovereign. If the sovereign, say a dictator or perhaps even a legislature as the case maybe, passed a law requiring that a group of individuals be inslaved, have their property taken away, and or put into camps you'd obey that law?
"You decided that because everyone in Europe drives on the left side of the street, people in this country should also"
Is the problem of driving on the left or on the right side of the road really an immoral law? If you think so it'll be a laugh for you to come up with that line of reasoning.
On the other hand the fact that governments seem to be jailing and bankrupting people in order to protect idea monopolist's profits and in spite of 300 year old copyright law that does not work in the digital age seems to be the type of law people should be objecting to and resisting.
1) Many people put their time and effort into creating 'intangibles', just
the same as many other put their time and effor into building tangible objects.
I'd need to be convinced more that physical exertion is the same thing as
thinking / speaking, at least for an argument about the morality of copyright.
2) The intangible creations are of similar value to tangible creations.
Value to who? Having to pay for ideas only exists because *currently* there is
copyright that creates false scarcity *forcing* people to pay.
Creating something in reality and forcing other people not to think or witness
an idea / expression do not appear to be the same thing unless you have an
argument otherwise.
3) We have a social contract in this country
The social contract states that people give up some of their freedom in
subordination to government so government can be the arbiter of force to protect
each individual from one another. What this has to do with copyright was not
revealed in the rest of your sentence.
4) Basically, we have a social contract to compensate someone for their
efforts done in good faith.
The social contract only exists voluntarily, and in such cases as government is
abusing its power (like say throwing people in jail for trying to broaden their
minds by being exposed to others' ideas [with our without the content creator's
permission]) then it is incumbent upon the population to remove said government
from power.
"THE INFORMATION is what is being offered for sale"
Information for sale, sounds abserd like trying to sell me formulas, ideas, perhaps even air?
The only possible way someone could sell information is by creating false scarcity for it though various laws. These laws are anachronisms, they do not work unless a sizeable, perhaps the majority, of people are jailed. Time for the majority to speak up and have the law changed to severly reduce its length or perhaps and expand fair use rights.
One idea is that perhaps copyright should be only an exclusive right to *commerically* use the information, with personal use for any reason being allowed.
Slashdot Mirror
Express archiver for Outlook express does a good job of archiving messages, and attachments.
;).
It really is sad that there isnt a plug in that will allow you to archive all of your messages in readable format.
I wonder exactly how everyone else who uses Yahoo Groups or Google Groups gets their 'image' attachments out of ther email client
"The MPL license, like the BSD license, means a company can incorporate Firefox into a commercial product"
I think you better read the MPL again, it hardly looks anything like BSD and more importantly you cannot incorporate MPL code into a GPL program but you can with the modified BSD license. You can see here what licenses are Free but incompatible with the GPL.
"Most of the Mozilla code base is trilicensed under GPL, LGPL and MPL. So although Firefox can't use GPL code, other GPL projects can use Firefox code."
This wikipedia article says Mozilla is released under the MPL and the GPL which indicates you are correct about it being released under the GPL. I don't see why they just don't stick with the GPL, the MPL doesn't offer anything above what the GPL already guarentees.
...since it cannot make use of the GPL 'commons'. MPL is incompatible, hopefully they will make it GPL compatible.
As well, there is a distinct lack of variety in the Firefox browsers, more would probably occure as people import GPL code.
Uploading is not infrindgement as it is defined now in the copyright act, so ruled a judge in Canada.
;).
Government said it is looking at changing the copyright act to make uploading infrindgement but until such time it is *legal*, and thus not criminal, to upload in Canada.
I don't see the record industry crumbeling in Canada, strange...huh? In fact, it maybe in a country's interest to remove copyright and let stupider countries chain their citizens to prevent copyright abuse while they get the content for free
"Because either you need it, or someone else needs it enough to pay you for it, or you think you can make money selling services related to the product. Or because you want fame and recognition."
This is very insightful, people will still need software made, and big business will pay to get it done.
In fact, since if all information is public domain, you could use the best tools for the problem. It wouldnt be about writing software from scratch then, but selecting and customizing software to the particular task.
Metanet is somewhat known, I've spoken with the owner before. Don't insult things you dont know about.
Good work everyone working on the next generation of P2P networks.
"If you decide to break them instead, then don't be surprised when you're arrested."
People disrespect bad laws all the time, or would you, as a German, turn in Jews during WW2 since the government had a law that you do so?
Disrespecting laws also brings it to the public's attention, and allows for it to be revoked after being succesfully challenged.
"but distributing 2.7 terrabytes of music isn't the way to "fight" it."
Coroprations like the RIAA own the government. It is time to use anonymous P2P technology and bankrupt them into submission since, in America at least, the politians are bought and will stay bought until the RIAA has no more money to bribe with.
"they are unwilling to pay 99 cents to download a song, hey are unwilling to buy music at the retail level..."
By paying that '99' cents you are reinforcing the copyright regime, and the RIAA. Again, when you buy their music at the 'retail level' you are reinforcing the copyright regime, and the RIAA. It maybe morally imperative upon you, if you believe in the free flow of information, not to ever buy songs or music online or in the store.
At least not buy them until this RIAA copyright slavery is worked out one way or another.
"The production of information would then necessarily depend upon the initiative and regulation of the government."
First off, I said I dont know the details of how such a system would work, just that it seems to be becoming better in comparison to the RIAA's DRM, copyright police state and tech stagnant world.
It also does not mean government would necessarily have a say in content, it could simply pay content creators based on what the population votes for, etc.
This all assumes you cannot make money in a copyright free world, it seems people will still want to goto the theaters to see something even if it will be freely copied afterwards. Government could subsidize ticket prices to make up for not having the rental market cornered anymore etc.
Million different ideas, all seem better by the day vis a vis the RIAA end world view goal.
"Fortunately, the United States legal system is designed to work against mob rule like that. "
Yes, the constitution. Although, to the RIAA's dismay, there does not be a right to 'fuck up the country with DRM, police state tactics, and crippling technological innovation' in it.
"It's meant to protect minorities, even if the majority think that things should be otherwise."
You are comparing fat cat CEO's lining their pockets by denying the masses the right to information with the plight of minorities? I think that a disingenuous line of reasoning.
But by all means, shed some tears for these idea/information monopolists since their days of profiting by keeping the population ignorant and information starved will be over soon enough.
Murder seems immoral in and of itself. The freedom to have information does not seem remotely 'evil', if it is even evil, or as extreme as murder.
Thanks for playing though...
"This would remove all financial motivation for most worldly pursuits. Why write software? Why write a book? Why create music?"
:("
;).
Information would be a pure public good then. Like paying for national defense, you couldn't privately deliver such a good since people could enjoy national defense by allowing their neighbours to pay for the army. Everyone could similarily mooch though, thus a pure public good is necessarily provided for by government.
It is possible, if people do not want to create content although I see open source software alive and well without such incentives, government too can provide incentives, as they do with other pure public goods mentioned.
How would such a system work? Who knows, although it is rapidly looking better in comparison to the alternative DRM future, police state and tech phobic RIAA corporations' view.
"Never gonna happen, though...
Um, simple majority is easy enough. Go for it
"Boy, that Jaguar is overpriced: it's a few hundred dollars of steel, glass and leather. Therefore, I can steal it."
- don't-deprive-you-from-using-it." Do you scream when companies use GPL code without releasing the source? How is this different?"
It's called 'copyright infrindgement' and not theft for an important reason, they are different. Physical property is different than ideas and information. You do realize that you are not deprived of your ideas when someone else thinks them, right?
"Don't give me that "copyright-infringement-is-not-stealing-because-I
Do I scream? Who are you talking to, I think you'll find a wide audience here at Slashdot. As for companies bullying individuals, you'll find people fighting against them by what ever means at their disposal including flinging called copyright laws in their face.
"Let's make a deal: Microsoft can close the Linux source and you can copy all the music you want."
Lets make a better deal, abolish copyright and then the GPL and all other licenses won't be necessary. I like that better, lets go for it all it takes is a simple majority vote to repeal the copyright bill and we are there.
"committing tons of theft of intellectual property"
Its called copyright infrindgement and is seperate and different from theft. No physical object is stolen and the 'owner' is not deprived of use of their 'property'.
"How does the headline submitter expect movie industries to make any money, if he endorses this behavior?"
Does this industry's fantasy 'right' to profit trumpet the peoples' right to freedom of information? Their fantasy 'right' to profit include turning society into a DRM police state and blocking new technology?
Their right to profit, if it exists at all, comes secondary to the will of the people. Copyright is a mere bill that can be revoked with a majority at any time, and that time seems sooner then ever.
" People trading in illegal media are not "helpless", they're criminals."
That's a little too simplistic, esp. since we are talking about copyright which is an artifical line drawn in the sand.
Draw it else where, at say 0 years and abolish it altogether. Since copyright is law, and law can be changed by the people, we can change it if they continue to harass the population.
The small mogols will find their quest for profit by stifeling new technology and turning society into a copyright police state will not be tollerated.
"Don't want to get sued? DON'T BREAK THE LAW!!!"
;).
No, don't want to get sued then *change* the law. Let us make copyright 0 years. The people can make it any length they wish since copyright is an artifical creation of law.
I may settle for 14 years though, if they beg us enough
"The companies are planning to work together on technology that will secure this content, she said."
Here is a clue, if I can view it then it is not secure nor will it ever be secure enough.
DRM is the crazy idea of giving me the content, and also the key to view it, but though obfuscation somehow hide the decrypt process. It won't work in the long run.
Jtem seems to not realize that if you made a deritive of a GPLed work it does not have to be distributed unless you distribute the binaries.
I.e. I can make *MY* own version of LINUX, put in breath taking functionality, and as long as I use it only on my computer, or at my organization then I have *NO* obligation to release the source to anyone *UNLESS* I give away the binary file to an outside 3rd party.
A useful Wiki would be for prior art, or for people to submit ideas they want publically documented but not patented.
Perhaps someone has already done this, anyone know? The useful part would be the Wiki though, so everyone can submit prior art.
"Can open source and closed standards work together?
.NET. When will Sun decide to open Java up when Java becomes as much as an underdog/hasbeen as Solaris.
No they can't really, and even if it were possible why wouldn't people just use Eclipse?
"Under such a scheme Sun could maintain control of the Java API but allow open implementations."
Sun never learns. When they got into fight over java with Mircrosoft the result was MS making
No one cares anymore Sun, the community is just routing around you and soon you will be insignificant.
Where is PCHDTV located? Why don't you all come to Canada (instead of Europe), especially the PCHDTV tuner company.
We have plenty of room ready, especially in preperation for the dogers after President Bush reinstates the draft to fight his war(s) (if gets back in).
Really a good post, but the pest part is this, I laughted out loud.
"The government is not their personal Guido."
I also agree that copyright infrindgement is an artifical crime. Copyright property is a state-sponsored temporary monopoly which creates a scarcity which does not correspond to any state in reality. An *artifical* scarcity which does not exist or would exist except as created by law.
"If you wrote music for a living and people were pirating your music, you wouldn't be upset that you were losing money?"
If i were writing music for a living, would I really expect the government to turn society into a police state just to protect potential profits I could make on a song? Answer: No.
"you are NOT entitled to own a copy for free if they aren't giving it away."
And i say you are NOT entitled to use force, yourself or via the government, to prevent people from thinking ideas or experiencing expressions copyrighted or not. If you think you are morally justified to use said force then I eagerly await your reply.
"There should be a -1 moral relativist option"
I see nothing morally relativist about asking for an arguement, a justification, as to why someone can morally prohibit another person, via the government, from thinking certain ideas or viewing certain materials (copyrighted materials of course).
Moral relativists do not need or ask for justification since they use their own belief system to self justify their behavior, in case you were ignorant about the term in question.
"As a US citizen, you have the right to disagree with laws and lobby for their repeal. You do not have to right to break them."
And if a law is immoral, you happily continue to obey? All law is are promulgated rules passed by the sovereign. If the sovereign, say a dictator or perhaps even a legislature as the case maybe, passed a law requiring that a group of individuals be inslaved, have their property taken away, and or put into camps you'd obey that law?
"You decided that because everyone in Europe drives on the left side of the street, people in this country should also"
Is the problem of driving on the left or on the right side of the road really an immoral law? If you think so it'll be a laugh for you to come up with that line of reasoning.
On the other hand the fact that governments seem to be jailing and bankrupting people in order to protect idea monopolist's profits and in spite of 300 year old copyright law that does not work in the digital age seems to be the type of law people should be objecting to and resisting.
Your numbered statements:
1) Many people put their time and effort into creating 'intangibles', just the same as many other put their time and effor into building tangible objects.
I'd need to be convinced more that physical exertion is the same thing as thinking / speaking, at least for an argument about the morality of copyright.
2) The intangible creations are of similar value to tangible creations.
Value to who? Having to pay for ideas only exists because *currently* there is copyright that creates false scarcity *forcing* people to pay.
Creating something in reality and forcing other people not to think or witness an idea / expression do not appear to be the same thing unless you have an argument otherwise.
3) We have a social contract in this country
The social contract states that people give up some of their freedom in subordination to government so government can be the arbiter of force to protect each individual from one another. What this has to do with copyright was not revealed in the rest of your sentence.
4) Basically, we have a social contract to compensate someone for their efforts done in good faith.
The social contract only exists voluntarily, and in such cases as government is abusing its power (like say throwing people in jail for trying to broaden their minds by being exposed to others' ideas [with our without the content creator's permission]) then it is incumbent upon the population to remove said government from power.
5) Sound good?
No. I will not sit back and watch society degenerate into one in which *every* *EVERY* single idea or expression must be paid for, where reading is metered out like gasoline and you pay by the word.
"THE INFORMATION is what is being offered for sale"
Information for sale, sounds abserd like trying to sell me formulas, ideas, perhaps even air?
The only possible way someone could sell information is by creating false scarcity for it though various laws. These laws are anachronisms, they do not work unless a sizeable, perhaps the majority, of people are jailed. Time for the majority to speak up and have the law changed to severly reduce its length or perhaps and expand fair use rights.
One idea is that perhaps copyright should be only an exclusive right to *commerically* use the information, with personal use for any reason being allowed.