That's a simplistic question which ignores the realities of the world.
BS. See below.
People who rely on copyright for income rarely have any contact with the product in today's world. Everything is controlled by large distributors. In the pharmaceutical industry, we sign over all rights to the company. The same happens in software. The same happens in music.
I disagree. Once upon a time I wrote a shareware package. Income was decent. And the entire thing was controlled by myself and one other person. We had a very simple registration key system (that would never actually disable the program, just saddle it with a 10 second nag screen after 30 days). For the first 10 or 15 releases there was always a crack released on the SAME DAY. After that a key generator popped up. Usage of the software was high. Much higher than the revenues suggested (it was a usenet reader so it was fairly easy to track such things).
Now I never whined to the police or reported pirates to ISPs or any sort of bullshit like that. I never turned anyone into a criminal.
So please, if you would, answer a slight variation of the original question. Were the people who were copying my software, software that I worked my ass off on, acting ethically?
That the original work was not even copyrighted is hardly a "technicality".
Also, if this is really frustrating to you then I suggest you consider curtailing your donations and instead contributing to a lobbyest or PAC that has the same goals as you. Sure, the ultimate goal of the EEF might be to change law, but at the core they are protecting PEOPLE who are getting steamrolled. Lobbyests and PACs cut out the middleman (the poor shmuck who is about to lose everything he has because *insert conglomerate here* has an army of lawyers on his ass) and go straight to the lawmakers.
like telcos, cable companies, radio broadcasters, etc. who are profiting through regulated use of a publically-owned resource
You're making a big stretch here. It takes very little (other than a pilot with the right ticket and a capable bird) to become and "airline". Anyone can use the sky and it's not like you have to ask the FAA to borrow a slice of it.
If it's a monolithic company that provides all of the training, support, custom programming, installations, etc then they CAN make good money with linux. Just that you can't do it as a SOFTWARE company.
Depends on where you are. Here in Georgia, USA, they are not worth the paper they are written on. Yes, every company makes you sign one. Yes, the company might choose to try and make life miserable for you. But all it takes is a decent lawyer, enough rupees to pay him for a few hours of work and you are free to go about your business.
And most of the complaining will likely be done by open source advocates whose choice of software also has the net effect of putting the same utility programmers out of a job.
Quite true. I have two guns. Both shotguns, both used exclusively for skeet shooting. When at home they are kept, unloaded, in a locked closet. The ammunition is kept in a lock box on a high shelf in the garage. This renders the guns absolutely useless for home defense, but on the other hand, negates (or at least SHARPLY reduces) the likelyhood of my child, or any of her friends from becoming firearm statistics.
Hrm, and then there is Canada. Lots of guns. Nowhere on the list. I tend to think that murder rates might have more do with dense populations of impoverished people.
Maybe, just maybe, to those people the time saved using off the shelf hardware and software is more important than being able to thump their chests and brag about how tight the assembly code they can write is? Now, I know that YOU can write bug free assembly in your sleep, in half the time it takes us mortals to do it, so you don't need to mention that in your followup.
Heh, reminds of when I was 15 years old working at a TV rental store in (oddly enough) New Orleans installing anti-theft devices. Learning to "safely" discharge that cap was the first lesson on day one.
Well, this may be what you would have to do using firefox, but in IE it's a bit easier. When you click on an EXE or MSI (or whatever) file you are given three choices. Open/Download/Cancel. Open will download/run the file. Download will present you with a dialog to specify location (defaults to the last directory used to download, which I leave at a holding directory used specifically for... downloads), slapping OK on that dialog lets it download. When the download is complete another dialog pops up allowing you to open the file, open the location (in explorer) or just dismiss the thing.
Why? Most users choose to use one particular distro and don't have to deal with the others. What good would a universal install do?
For starters it would make a developers job much easier, reduce support costs, and generally make writing Linux software a lot more attractive to smaller ISVs. You know, the important shit.
It isn't. To me it's simply a relational database as a part of the OS and will be installed by EVERYONE who installs said OS. Simple idea, I've been wishing someone would do it for ages. The fancy stuff they are building on top of it might be exciting to some people, and might even be what's innovative, but that's not my bad.
A lightweight relational datastore that is built into the OS. As a developer this is nice. Very nice. Currently my viable options are MSDE/SQL Server (too heavy for small apps, hard to build the MSDE install into another products install) or Access (too light, apt to corrupt itself, leaves a file laying around that any user with access installed can easily poke into). WinFS +.NET framework will be a much nicer solution since there are no install woes or extra files laying about. In addition classes can be generated to programatically access the schema I have defined, and I can generate classes to access other schemas and even extend other schemas.
Slashdot Mirror
*lets out a long low whistle*
Nice segue into a rambling anti-war diatribe ya got there, Simon.
That's a simplistic question which ignores the realities of the world.
BS. See below.
People who rely on copyright for income rarely have any contact with the product in today's world. Everything is controlled by large distributors. In the pharmaceutical industry, we sign over all rights to the company. The same happens in software. The same happens in music.
I disagree. Once upon a time I wrote a shareware package. Income was decent. And the entire thing was controlled by myself and one other person. We had a very simple registration key system (that would never actually disable the program, just saddle it with a 10 second nag screen after 30 days). For the first 10 or 15 releases there was always a crack released on the SAME DAY. After that a key generator popped up. Usage of the software was high. Much higher than the revenues suggested (it was a usenet reader so it was fairly easy to track such things).
Now I never whined to the police or reported pirates to ISPs or any sort of bullshit like that. I never turned anyone into a criminal.
So please, if you would, answer a slight variation of the original question. Were the people who were copying my software, software that I worked my ass off on, acting ethically?
Ah so the falwell case (which he mentioned before he went off on the sidenote) was about copyright? Damn, though it was about libel.
That the original work was not even copyrighted is hardly a "technicality".
Also, if this is really frustrating to you then I suggest you consider curtailing your donations and instead contributing to a lobbyest or PAC that has the same goals as you. Sure, the ultimate goal of the EEF might be to change law, but at the core they are protecting PEOPLE who are getting steamrolled. Lobbyests and PACs cut out the middleman (the poor shmuck who is about to lose everything he has because *insert conglomerate here* has an army of lawyers on his ass) and go straight to the lawmakers.
You're cornfused. Copyright and Libel are two totally different things.
Um...
Format->Reveal Formatting
Not exactly the same as reveal codes, but quite helpful.
Well... Do you?
like telcos, cable companies, radio broadcasters, etc. who are profiting through regulated use of a publically-owned resource
You're making a big stretch here. It takes very little (other than a pilot with the right ticket and a capable bird) to become and "airline". Anyone can use the sky and it's not like you have to ask the FAA to borrow a slice of it.
Clever.
So Sonic is the meth monster?
Please take a bath.
If it's a monolithic company that provides all of the training, support, custom programming, installations, etc then they CAN make good money with linux. Just that you can't do it as a SOFTWARE company.
Depends on where you are. Here in Georgia, USA, they are not worth the paper they are written on. Yes, every company makes you sign one. Yes, the company might choose to try and make life miserable for you. But all it takes is a decent lawyer, enough rupees to pay him for a few hours of work and you are free to go about your business.
And most of the complaining will likely be done by open source advocates whose choice of software also has the net effect of putting the same utility programmers out of a job.
M$ is teh bad!1
Source code usually compresses a lot better.
Quite true. I have two guns. Both shotguns, both used exclusively for skeet shooting. When at home they are kept, unloaded, in a locked closet. The ammunition is kept in a lock box on a high shelf in the garage. This renders the guns absolutely useless for home defense, but on the other hand, negates (or at least SHARPLY reduces) the likelyhood of my child, or any of her friends from becoming firearm statistics.
Hrm, and then there is Canada. Lots of guns. Nowhere on the list. I tend to think that murder rates might have more do with dense populations of impoverished people.
Maybe, just maybe, to those people the time saved using off the shelf hardware and software is more important than being able to thump their chests and brag about how tight the assembly code they can write is? Now, I know that YOU can write bug free assembly in your sleep, in half the time it takes us mortals to do it, so you don't need to mention that in your followup.
No "Confederacy of Dunces" quote? You rilly ourtah be ashamed ayosef.
Heh, reminds of when I was 15 years old working at a TV rental store in (oddly enough) New Orleans installing anti-theft devices. Learning to "safely" discharge that cap was the first lesson on day one.
sue the hell out of the state for making you think you had the skills needed to safely do that job
Noooo, you just call Morris Bart.
Well, this may be what you would have to do using firefox, but in IE it's a bit easier. When you click on an EXE or MSI (or whatever) file you are given three choices. Open/Download/Cancel. Open will download/run the file. Download will present you with a dialog to specify location (defaults to the last directory used to download, which I leave at a holding directory used specifically for ... downloads), slapping OK on that dialog lets it download. When the download is complete another dialog pops up allowing you to open the file, open the location (in explorer) or just dismiss the thing.
Very easy and logical flow, if you ask me.
Why? Most users choose to use one particular distro and don't have to deal with the others. What good would a universal install do?
For starters it would make a developers job much easier, reduce support costs, and generally make writing Linux software a lot more attractive to smaller ISVs. You know, the important shit.
It isn't. To me it's simply a relational database as a part of the OS and will be installed by EVERYONE who installs said OS. Simple idea, I've been wishing someone would do it for ages. The fancy stuff they are building on top of it might be exciting to some people, and might even be what's innovative, but that's not my bad.
A lightweight relational datastore that is built into the OS. As a developer this is nice. Very nice. Currently my viable options are MSDE/SQL Server (too heavy for small apps, hard to build the MSDE install into another products install) or Access (too light, apt to corrupt itself, leaves a file laying around that any user with access installed can easily poke into). WinFS + .NET framework will be a much nicer solution since there are no install woes or extra files laying about. In addition classes can be generated to programatically access the schema I have defined, and I can generate classes to access other schemas and even extend other schemas.