In fact, if you wanted, you could skip the telecoms entirely and only use an Android phone over wifi with VoIP.
Personally, I want to try to con T-mobile into giving me a unlimited data-only plan, and use Google Voice with VoIP for all my calls on Wi-Fi and GSM. Said plan is currently $35/month, which is cheaper than voice by itself (let alone voice+data), but T-Mobile won't let you use it with a G1/HTC Dream.
I can see this being a pretty big headache for lawyers.
I wouldn't call it a "headache;" this is exactly what lawyers do for a living! It's probably the sort of thing they'd call "fun," in the same way that hardcore CS geeks get their kicks pondering the Traveling Salesman Problem. Plus they get paid for it.
Besides, it's really an issue of corporate law (not copyright) anyway, since the only question is how the entities involved get arranged into legal "persons."
It is entirely possible for one part of Microsoft - probably the Windows Server marketing organization - to be spewing anti-GPL filth while at the same time another part of Microsoft - the hypervisor engineering team - is working very hard to interoperate with Linux because the lack of that integration is killing them in the marketplace against VMware.
The only trouble with that theory is that the only way for the hypervisor engineering team to know about the lack of integration killing them in the marketplace to begin with is if the Windows Server marketing organization told them about it, and that means the marketing group would have to be schizophrenic within itself!
First of all: Microsoft OWNS the copyright so they can change the license for whatever they want, whenever they want, GPL does not imposes restrictions on ownership;
If it were a stand-alone program you'd be correct; however, this particular code is a derivative work of the Linux kernel. As such, Microsoft is restricted to releasing only under the GPLv2 because they share the copyright with Linus and a whole bunch of other people.
Note also that this is even the case if Microsoft holds the copyright on every individual line of code they're distributing (as if it were to be linked by the end-user, for example) -- the code as a whole is still "tainted" by the fact that it's designed to be assembled along with non-Microsoft-copyright code into a derivative work. Although it might be difficult for us techies to understand how this can be true when it's not reflected within the code itself, copyright (and law in general) can and does often make distinctions based on "whys" instead of "whats."
In order to argue that the code is not a derivative work of the Linux kernel, it would have to be capable of substantial stand-alone use (or perhaps use in combination with some other unrelated software, such as the Windows NT kernel). And the key word there is "substantial" -- sticking in a trivial main() function for debugging purposes doesn't cut it.
Finally, keep in mind that all this is a consequence of copyright law itself, not something imposed by the GPL and unique to it.
Also, I am unsure of how internal distribution is mandated. For example, if I deploy a modified Debian or Ubuntu as a desktop OS for workstations in the company I work for, do i need to deploy a copy of the source code on each machine or include a copy of the license with a form for requesting a CD or DVD of the source code?
It depends how the company is legally organized. Deployment to computers owned by the company and used by W-2 employees is definitely not "distribution", deployment to computers owned and used by 1099 independent contractors definitely is "distribution," and I'm unsure about other permutations.
In theory, loading a binary driver into the kernel can be regarded as creating a new derivative work, however, you can still legally use the kernel if you don't plan to distribute it. That's how actually binary drivers like NVidia's and ATI's work. Statically linking binary code with GPL code is a different matter, however...
To further clarify, even statically linking is okay if the end user is the one doing it. Statically linking non-GPL code and then distributing the result is the only thing disallowed.
Well, it seems you did not download the gpl version, but an old version.
Sorry, but copyright law doesn't work that way. Even if they do abide by the license when they release a new version, the old version is still a separate work (according to the law) and still in violation. They need to either release the source code for the old version too, or quit distributing it.
The smoke you refer to was from high sulfur diesel which is no longer sold in the United States.
Partly, but it was mostly from the low-tech engines used (large mechanical tolerances, no turbocharger, indirect injection, etc.). My 1998 VW New Beetle TDI, which was manufactured well before the switch to ULSD, also produced* very little to no smoke because it has a comparatively modern and high-tech engine. It's not as high-tech as a 2009 TDI engine because it's two generations behind in fuel injection technology (new engines use common-rail injection at very high pressures; mine has a distributor-pump system at fairly low pressures; moderately-high-pressure unit injection systems came between), but it does have a variable-geometry turbocharger, direct injection, etc.
For example the Jetta gasoline vs diesel goes from 20 to 29 city and 29 to 40 highway (45% city, 38% highway).
The funny thing is, the older TDIs (like mine) did even better. My mileage is around 35 city/45 highway, and the more-aerodynamic** Golfs and Jettas with the same engine (model years 1999-2003) average about 50 mpg highway easily. The new Jetta is hobbled by three factors: first, it weighs considerably more than the old one. Second, the engine is considerably more powerful (140 HP/236 ft-lbs vs. 90 HP/155 ft-lbs). Third, it's tuned to sacrifice economy in favor of lower emissions.
(* My car would still produce little to no smoke now, even 11 years and 180K miles later, except that I've modded it for more power. It smokes now only during full-throttle acceleration and only moderately, and does so because I've increased fueling but haven't (yet) increased the air flow to compensate.)
(** It's counter-intuitive: the Beetle looks aerodynamic, but it's actually got a drag coefficient of 0.38 (compared to about 0.30 for a 4th-generation Jetta). This is because the smoothly-sloping rear end prevents the flow from separating until it gets all the way down to the bumper, which produces "lift" backwards. See this site for more info.)
I am not sure why, since diesel has been more expensive every time I have looked since that initial conversation in 1980.
The price ratio varies both regionally (i.e., midwest vs. New England) and locally (i.e., urban vs. suburban vs. rural vs. rural-but-next-to-Interstate); you probably live in an area with relatively high diesel demand or relatively low competition. On average (nationally), diesel has been cheaper than regular unleaded gasoline for all but the last few years. It spiked for a while due to a combination of factors including the switch to ultra-low-sulfur diesel, supply disruptions caused by stuff like Katrina, and the economic bubble leading up to the current recession. Back when gasoline hit $4/gallon, diesel managed to break $5, but since then it dropped back down and has been more or less equal to regular unleaded again for the past 6 months or so.
Of course, as you noted, even when it was more expensive per gallon it was still cheaper per mile. There was a week or two there when my Hyundai Accent became cheaper to operate than my VW Beetle TDI, but that's an unfair comparison (the TDI would still have beat a gasoline-engined Beetle).
To boot, diesel fuel used to be cheap. Now it is usually selling higher than gasoline.
Diesel fuel has only been more expensive in the last two years because of the "perfect storm" of the switch to ULSD, supply disruptions (Katrina, etc.) and economic instability all at the same time. Now that things have settled down a bit, Diesel has been consistently about the same price as regular unleaded for something like six months now.
...a fuel that is hard to find...
Diesel is not hard to find. I live in a large urban area (note: actually in it, not in the suburbs), which would be the type of area least likely to stock diesel, but even so at least half of the gas stations have it.
...pollutes the environment with sulfur and particulate matter...
And gasoline pollutes the environment with NOx, VOCs, CO, and (comparatively more) CO2. Diesel merely pollutes differently from gasoline, not worse.
Besides, between ULSD and (better yet) biodiesel, diesel technology has become significantly cleaner recently. (In fact, my TDI running B100 doesn't produce any sulfur emissions at all!)
...is just a dog performance wise?
First of all, although diesels have comparatively low horsepower because they don't generally rev as high as gasoline engines, they have lots of torque. They'll "feel" quicker than a comparable gasoline car (even one with exactly the same 0-60 time) -- nothing "dog-like" about that! Second, even my 11-year-old, lightly modded VW New Beetle TDI has performance at least equal to a 1.8T ("lightly modded" means ECU reprogramming and larger injector nozzles, for which I spent a grand total of $400). Third, newer diesels have plenty of power. In fact, the BMW 3-series diesel is second only to the M3 in performance! Fourth, but not least, "performance" includes handling too, and the popular hybrids (the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight) have crappy suspensions compared to the popular diesel (the VW Jetta). This isn't an inherent difference, but it is a practical one for now.
Maybe if someone was a VW fan, but there are far economical and more fun to drive vehicles.
Although I own a VW, I am not even slightly a "VW fan" (I own it despite the fact that it's a VW, not because of it). So believe me when I say that, although there are more economical vehicles and more fun-to-drive vehicles, there are not any that are both at the same time. At least not until the Honda CR-Z comes out, anyway (and maybe not even then, if the CR-Z isn't available with a manual transmission).
Hybrids have left the diesels in the dust when it comes to both gas mileage, sustainability, and performance.
The 2009 Jetta TDI beat all the hybrids for "Green Car of the Year." Hybrids win on gas mileage for city stop-and-go driving but diesels win for highway driving, which means that "better" depends on the individual driver's city/highway ratio, and is probably a tie when you aggregate all American drivers together. All hybrids require petroleum fuel (even if they were "flex-fuel"-compatible, which AFAIK they aren't except maybe for the models from Ford and Chevy, E85 is still 15% gasoline), while Diesels can run perfectly well on 100% biodiesel.* B100 is more sustainable than E85 (especially when the ethanol is derived from the edible parts of corn rather than something sane like sugar cane or cellulose), and much more sustainable than petroleum gasoline. And Diesels tend to beat hybrids in performance, not the other way around!
I am not a diesel fanboy (although this post might give that impression). I believe both diesel and hybrid technologies are worthwhile (in fact, I hope to
But try to make it stick in court after the ink is dry on the contract.
Contract? Court? What do they have to do with anything? Either the image meets Wikipedia's licensing requirements and gets posted, or it fails to meet them and doesn't get posted. Wikipedia's policy is solely determined by Wikipedia; the publicists don't get to appeal it in court!
There is a whole chain of people involved other than celebrity, publicist, and photographer.
And none of those people are Wikipedia. Whatever compromise or negotiation or threats or assault the studio, celebrity, publicist, photographer, and whoever else have to make amongst themselves to accomplish producing a CC-licensed image for Wikipedia is entirely up to them. Likewise, failing to accomplish that is their problem, not Wikipedia's. And those two options correspond to the "deal[ing] with it" and "fuck[ing] off" I mentioned previously.
On the contrary, you missed my point: since you already figured that out (that CC-licensed images cost you future revenue, so you have to charge more for them to compensate), why'd you continue blathering on for another two and a half paragraphs? I can only assume you intended to make some other argument there, so I was asking what it was since I sure as Hell couldn't find it!
There is a quality bar: images that have the "quality" of being freely distributable are acceptable; images that don't, aren't. It's easy; it works; there's nothing wrong with it!
Wikipedia does accept copyrighted images! They're just permissively-licensed, and "copyrighted-and-permissively-licensed" and "public domain" are not the same thing. Yes, they have similar practical effects sometimes. However, they're different enough that it's important to distinguish between them. Mixing them up ruined the credibility of your otherwise-correct-and-insightful post and contributes to the general confusion and misunderstanding about copyright that causes jerkwads like the guy in the article to make nonsensical complaints in the first place!
Presumably, you cared enough about copyright issues to write that post. Next time, could you put in just the little bit of extra effort to get the terminology right, please? Half the problem with copyright is that the precise distinctions between concepts matter, yet people can't be bothered to pay attention to them. And I'm getting sick and tired of it!
I completely agree: "go fuck yourself" is exactly what should be said to the whiny photographers/publicists/whoever who can't deal with Wikipedia's policy!
...Publicists are not going to be willing to pay that, and just want Wikipedia to play by their rules.
There really should be a compromise here.
The only "compromise" there should be here is that Wikipedia gets to set the rules, and the publicists and photographers can either deal with it or fuck off!
That means, I can not turn around and re-license the picture to Wiki under the CC, as the contract we have forbids it. That's the publicists problem, not mine. If the publicist wants the picture under the CC, I am going to charge more for it... You say that a photographer retains their copyright, but if the picture is out there under the CC who needs to license it from the photographer under anything more restrictive? Since that is lost future potential revenue, it's going to cost more, period.
No shit, Sherlock! So charge enough for the picture to make it worth it for you, and then you're done. What's the problem?!
Short of waiting to be blessed by some rich benefactor, how do YOU suggest a photographer make money at their trade?
Oh wait, right this is Slashdot. Shaft first, think of ways to compensate later.
What are you, stupid? People on Slashdot think that way because it's the economic reality of the situation. I don't give a shit whether you like it or not; the unsustainability of photographers' business model is a fact. They either have to suck it up think up a new one or quit being photographers; it's that simple. And your whining won't change that. Deal with it!
Actually, I do realize that American and European copyright law is different. I just didn't bother to mention it because we're talking about an American who uploaded the pictures to a set of servers administered by an American organization and located in America. Therefore, only American copyright is relevant.
So you're arguing that the photographer did not choose the lighting, effects, angle, framing, mise-en-sene, etc on the grounds that he did precisely that? You always try to take the "best" setting while taking ANY photograph...
No, I'm arguing that "best" in this case was objective rather than subjective. Or in other words, that there was only one correct lighting configuration, and he could only "choose" to be right or wrong -- which is no real choice at all.
If you want to get into semantics, the whole idea of photography is based around capturing a scene without adding to or taking anything from it, that of course takes a creative effort (use light and perspective creatively), you can't not put a creative effort into photography, photography REQUIRES a creative effort.
But if your definition of "photography" requires "capturing a scene," then this doesn't count as "photography!" There's no "scene" here; there's only the existing image that you're trying to perfectly reproduce.
Besides, regarding your assertion that "you can't not put creative effort into photography" -- what about medical X-rays? Or mugshots? Are they creative? Obviously not, and these photographs we're discussing are no different!
Copyright's purpose is to benefit the whole of society by making it possible and profitable to produce easily copied products.
Not quite. Copyright's purpose in the United States is to benefit the whole of society by encouraging production of new works. Making such production profitable is only the means of achieving that purpose, not the purpose itself.
Copyright's purpose in Europe is indeed profit (or at least ownership, which implies profit), but is not intended to benefit the whole of society.
Slashdot Mirror
See my other post.
Google Voice by itself isn't a VoIP system, but Google Voice + Gizmo5 + Fring is. And it works now.
Personally, I want to try to con T-mobile into giving me a unlimited data-only plan, and use Google Voice with VoIP for all my calls on Wi-Fi and GSM. Said plan is currently $35/month, which is cheaper than voice by itself (let alone voice+data), but T-Mobile won't let you use it with a G1/HTC Dream.
What's going to be really interesting is seeing what happens to apps that use Google Voice to make [free] VoIP calls on Google Android devices...
I wouldn't call it a "headache;" this is exactly what lawyers do for a living! It's probably the sort of thing they'd call "fun," in the same way that hardcore CS geeks get their kicks pondering the Traveling Salesman Problem. Plus they get paid for it.
Besides, it's really an issue of corporate law (not copyright) anyway, since the only question is how the entities involved get arranged into legal "persons."
The only trouble with that theory is that the only way for the hypervisor engineering team to know about the lack of integration killing them in the marketplace to begin with is if the Windows Server marketing organization told them about it, and that means the marketing group would have to be schizophrenic within itself!
If it were a stand-alone program you'd be correct; however, this particular code is a derivative work of the Linux kernel. As such, Microsoft is restricted to releasing only under the GPLv2 because they share the copyright with Linus and a whole bunch of other people.
Note also that this is even the case if Microsoft holds the copyright on every individual line of code they're distributing (as if it were to be linked by the end-user, for example) -- the code as a whole is still "tainted" by the fact that it's designed to be assembled along with non-Microsoft-copyright code into a derivative work. Although it might be difficult for us techies to understand how this can be true when it's not reflected within the code itself, copyright (and law in general) can and does often make distinctions based on "whys" instead of "whats."
In order to argue that the code is not a derivative work of the Linux kernel, it would have to be capable of substantial stand-alone use (or perhaps use in combination with some other unrelated software, such as the Windows NT kernel). And the key word there is "substantial" -- sticking in a trivial main() function for debugging purposes doesn't cut it.
Finally, keep in mind that all this is a consequence of copyright law itself, not something imposed by the GPL and unique to it.
Is the address to which the letter should be sent included with the binary distribution?
It depends how the company is legally organized. Deployment to computers owned by the company and used by W-2 employees is definitely not "distribution", deployment to computers owned and used by 1099 independent contractors definitely is "distribution," and I'm unsure about other permutations.
To further clarify, even statically linking is okay if the end user is the one doing it. Statically linking non-GPL code and then distributing the result is the only thing disallowed.
Sorry, but copyright law doesn't work that way. Even if they do abide by the license when they release a new version, the old version is still a separate work (according to the law) and still in violation. They need to either release the source code for the old version too, or quit distributing it.
Partly, but it was mostly from the low-tech engines used (large mechanical tolerances, no turbocharger, indirect injection, etc.). My 1998 VW New Beetle TDI, which was manufactured well before the switch to ULSD, also produced* very little to no smoke because it has a comparatively modern and high-tech engine. It's not as high-tech as a 2009 TDI engine because it's two generations behind in fuel injection technology (new engines use common-rail injection at very high pressures; mine has a distributor-pump system at fairly low pressures; moderately-high-pressure unit injection systems came between), but it does have a variable-geometry turbocharger, direct injection, etc.
The funny thing is, the older TDIs (like mine) did even better. My mileage is around 35 city/45 highway, and the more-aerodynamic** Golfs and Jettas with the same engine (model years 1999-2003) average about 50 mpg highway easily. The new Jetta is hobbled by three factors: first, it weighs considerably more than the old one. Second, the engine is considerably more powerful (140 HP/236 ft-lbs vs. 90 HP/155 ft-lbs). Third, it's tuned to sacrifice economy in favor of lower emissions.
(* My car would still produce little to no smoke now, even 11 years and 180K miles later, except that I've modded it for more power. It smokes now only during full-throttle acceleration and only moderately, and does so because I've increased fueling but haven't (yet) increased the air flow to compensate.)
(** It's counter-intuitive: the Beetle looks aerodynamic, but it's actually got a drag coefficient of 0.38 (compared to about 0.30 for a 4th-generation Jetta). This is because the smoothly-sloping rear end prevents the flow from separating until it gets all the way down to the bumper, which produces "lift" backwards. See this site for more info.)
The price ratio varies both regionally (i.e., midwest vs. New England) and locally (i.e., urban vs. suburban vs. rural vs. rural-but-next-to-Interstate); you probably live in an area with relatively high diesel demand or relatively low competition. On average (nationally), diesel has been cheaper than regular unleaded gasoline for all but the last few years. It spiked for a while due to a combination of factors including the switch to ultra-low-sulfur diesel, supply disruptions caused by stuff like Katrina, and the economic bubble leading up to the current recession. Back when gasoline hit $4/gallon, diesel managed to break $5, but since then it dropped back down and has been more or less equal to regular unleaded again for the past 6 months or so.
Of course, as you noted, even when it was more expensive per gallon it was still cheaper per mile. There was a week or two there when my Hyundai Accent became cheaper to operate than my VW Beetle TDI, but that's an unfair comparison (the TDI would still have beat a gasoline-engined Beetle).
Diesel fuel has only been more expensive in the last two years because of the "perfect storm" of the switch to ULSD, supply disruptions (Katrina, etc.) and economic instability all at the same time. Now that things have settled down a bit, Diesel has been consistently about the same price as regular unleaded for something like six months now.
Diesel is not hard to find. I live in a large urban area (note: actually in it, not in the suburbs), which would be the type of area least likely to stock diesel, but even so at least half of the gas stations have it.
And gasoline pollutes the environment with NOx, VOCs, CO, and (comparatively more) CO2. Diesel merely pollutes differently from gasoline, not worse.
Besides, between ULSD and (better yet) biodiesel, diesel technology has become significantly cleaner recently. (In fact, my TDI running B100 doesn't produce any sulfur emissions at all!)
First of all, although diesels have comparatively low horsepower because they don't generally rev as high as gasoline engines, they have lots of torque. They'll "feel" quicker than a comparable gasoline car (even one with exactly the same 0-60 time) -- nothing "dog-like" about that! Second, even my 11-year-old, lightly modded VW New Beetle TDI has performance at least equal to a 1.8T ("lightly modded" means ECU reprogramming and larger injector nozzles, for which I spent a grand total of $400). Third, newer diesels have plenty of power. In fact, the BMW 3-series diesel is second only to the M3 in performance! Fourth, but not least, "performance" includes handling too, and the popular hybrids (the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight) have crappy suspensions compared to the popular diesel (the VW Jetta). This isn't an inherent difference, but it is a practical one for now.
Although I own a VW, I am not even slightly a "VW fan" (I own it despite the fact that it's a VW, not because of it). So believe me when I say that, although there are more economical vehicles and more fun-to-drive vehicles, there are not any that are both at the same time. At least not until the Honda CR-Z comes out, anyway (and maybe not even then, if the CR-Z isn't available with a manual transmission).
The 2009 Jetta TDI beat all the hybrids for "Green Car of the Year." Hybrids win on gas mileage for city stop-and-go driving but diesels win for highway driving, which means that "better" depends on the individual driver's city/highway ratio, and is probably a tie when you aggregate all American drivers together. All hybrids require petroleum fuel (even if they were "flex-fuel"-compatible, which AFAIK they aren't except maybe for the models from Ford and Chevy, E85 is still 15% gasoline), while Diesels can run perfectly well on 100% biodiesel.* B100 is more sustainable than E85 (especially when the ethanol is derived from the edible parts of corn rather than something sane like sugar cane or cellulose), and much more sustainable than petroleum gasoline. And Diesels tend to beat hybrids in performance, not the other way around!
I am not a diesel fanboy (although this post might give that impression). I believe both diesel and hybrid technologies are worthwhile (in fact, I hope to
Contract? Court? What do they have to do with anything? Either the image meets Wikipedia's licensing requirements and gets posted, or it fails to meet them and doesn't get posted. Wikipedia's policy is solely determined by Wikipedia; the publicists don't get to appeal it in court!
And none of those people are Wikipedia. Whatever compromise or negotiation or threats or assault the studio, celebrity, publicist, photographer, and whoever else have to make amongst themselves to accomplish producing a CC-licensed image for Wikipedia is entirely up to them. Likewise, failing to accomplish that is their problem, not Wikipedia's. And those two options correspond to the "deal[ing] with it" and "fuck[ing] off" I mentioned previously.
On the contrary, you missed my point: since you already figured that out (that CC-licensed images cost you future revenue, so you have to charge more for them to compensate), why'd you continue blathering on for another two and a half paragraphs? I can only assume you intended to make some other argument there, so I was asking what it was since I sure as Hell couldn't find it!
There is a quality bar: images that have the "quality" of being freely distributable are acceptable; images that don't, aren't. It's easy; it works; there's nothing wrong with it!
Wikipedia does accept copyrighted images! They're just permissively-licensed, and "copyrighted-and-permissively-licensed" and "public domain" are not the same thing. Yes, they have similar practical effects sometimes. However, they're different enough that it's important to distinguish between them. Mixing them up ruined the credibility of your otherwise-correct-and-insightful post and contributes to the general confusion and misunderstanding about copyright that causes jerkwads like the guy in the article to make nonsensical complaints in the first place!
Presumably, you cared enough about copyright issues to write that post. Next time, could you put in just the little bit of extra effort to get the terminology right, please? Half the problem with copyright is that the precise distinctions between concepts matter, yet people can't be bothered to pay attention to them. And I'm getting sick and tired of it!
I completely agree: "go fuck yourself" is exactly what should be said to the whiny photographers/publicists/whoever who can't deal with Wikipedia's policy!
The only "compromise" there should be here is that Wikipedia gets to set the rules, and the publicists and photographers can either deal with it or fuck off!
No shit, Sherlock! So charge enough for the picture to make it worth it for you, and then you're done. What's the problem?!
What are you, stupid? People on Slashdot think that way because it's the economic reality of the situation. I don't give a shit whether you like it or not; the unsustainability of photographers' business model is a fact. They either have to suck it up think up a new one or quit being photographers; it's that simple. And your whining won't change that. Deal with it!
Actually, I do realize that American and European copyright law is different. I just didn't bother to mention it because we're talking about an American who uploaded the pictures to a set of servers administered by an American organization and located in America. Therefore, only American copyright is relevant.
No, I'm arguing that "best" in this case was objective rather than subjective. Or in other words, that there was only one correct lighting configuration, and he could only "choose" to be right or wrong -- which is no real choice at all.
But if your definition of "photography" requires "capturing a scene," then this doesn't count as "photography!" There's no "scene" here; there's only the existing image that you're trying to perfectly reproduce.
Besides, regarding your assertion that "you can't not put creative effort into photography" -- what about medical X-rays? Or mugshots? Are they creative? Obviously not, and these photographs we're discussing are no different!
Not quite. Copyright's purpose in the United States is to benefit the whole of society by encouraging production of new works. Making such production profitable is only the means of achieving that purpose, not the purpose itself.
Copyright's purpose in Europe is indeed profit (or at least ownership, which implies profit), but is not intended to benefit the whole of society.