To me this is what seems to be wrong with copyright because it complicates an otherwise simple law. The question then becomes - how different is my arrangement of a Mozart or Beethoven work? This takes it out of the realm that can be easily understood by a jury and brings in all kinds of 'experts'.
It also allows the corporations with big pockets to threaten lawsuits even if they're only performing a song that is in the public domain.
This is another reason why the automatic copyright system is so flawed. If you had to apply for a copyright, it is quite possible that copyright would not have been granted for a performance of a public domain work. Also most of the copyfraud cases could be nipped in the bud.
I think the problem is that people can now use the Firehose to influence which stories we see. And since most people don't check the firehose too often, it can be (and maybe is being) influenced by the MS and Apple fans. That to me partly explains why we have been seeing too many of these stories lately. More interesting (and obscure) stories just don't pass muster.
Which is why I like the voting machines used in India - they're very simple and basically just counting machines. That makes it easier to verify that the code is secure.
Microsoft was caught doing something illegal - obviously they'll get bashed for this. I don't see anything wrong with that. Just like Apple got bashed (in spite of the fanbois) for the problems with Safari for Windows.
I don't see how Bush comes into the picture. You also have no idea about my political belief. If you read my comment, I had also mentioned the French, Russian and Chinese oil companies (which means governments in China and Russia). In fact the situation is worse when there is Chinese or Russian oil involved because there is so little media coverage or open discussion about them.
Let me just point out a few instances when oil may have played a part in recent history.
Saddam's campaign against the Kurds - why was he allowed to get away with this for so long?
Why were the French and Russians so opposed to sanctions against Saddam?
Sudan is already listed here
Venezuela seems to be losing its democracy right in front of our eyes, and nobody seems to want to do anything.
Why are the middle-eastern countries allowed to get away with the kind of autocratic behavior that we would not tolerate in our own countries
There are probably others where oil has played a part, but I can't recall them off the top of my head.
That and the fact that Sudan has oil, which the Chinese are heavily invested in.
That's the most insightful post so far on this topic. As long as the Chinese/American/Russian/French/et al. oil companies are getting rich, nobody cares about genocide.
My idea is simply that multiple protections should not apply. You cannot both have trade secrets and copyrights. Think of books or paintings - by their very nature, they cannot be kept trade secret. Now the way to print the book or mix paints can be a trade secret, but not the book itself. Similarly the source code cannot be both a trade secret and copyrighted. Any techniques used to create the actual code can be kept trade secret, however.
Now it could be argued that the source code is only the 'recipe' and not the product itself and hence deserves copyright. But again if you think of copyrighted recipes, they need to have been published to be copyrighted. The minute you publish your recipe (in a book, magazine or online), it becomes copyright and loses its trade secret status.
Someone had earlier posted about the four different types of "intellectual properties" - patents, copyright, trademark and trade secrets. I always find it pretty amazing that software seems to be the only field where all 4 protections could be available on the same piece of code.
A piece of code can be protected by patents, can be copyrighted, trademarked and even held a trade secret (closed source). What's so special about software that it mandates so much protection? I'd love to see just one protection available for software. For instance, if it's trade secret (closed source) then you don't get patent or copyright protection. If it's open source, then you get only copyright protection. For really core and non-obvious algorithms, you can get patent protection, but you will lose copyright protection in that case (say you will need to submit the code as part of the patent application, making it public domain).
Umm... when was the last time V. S. Naipaul lived in India, and I mean lived, not visited. He should not comment on things he has no clue about. The problem with many of the Indians living outside India is that they have been fed a lie that Hinduism is under attack in India and is dying. Nothing could be further from the truth, just going by the sheer number of people who are present whenever any so-called "Godman" comes to town.
I'm not denying that there is a section of the Indian polity that is often anti-hindu because of vote bank politics. But there is equally a section that is rabidly pro-hindu because of vote bank politics.
Have you ever stopped to wonder why every news story about Shiv Sena involves vandalism - they're never doing anything constructive, always destructive. It's no wonder then that they find themselves slowly losing favor in the eyes of the common man.
Ah! That explains it - if you remember the Debian Iceweasel stink a while back, non-official releases are not allowed to be named Firefox. Hence your browser identifies itself as Bon-Echo.
The truth is languages such as C/C++ and Java(to lesser extent) are not good languages to write parallel code in.
To a certain extent Java is trying to correct that with the java.util.concurrent library. Unfortunately, not many people seem to have started using it yet.
And that is exactly why packaging could be a boon for the average Joe. How many people really care where the stuff is installed?
Having said that, I feel that it's too late in the game to try to introduce package managers to windows. People are just so used to doing things one way that they're very unlikely to change.
No, I think you completely misunderstood the point of GPL software - it's not necessarily free (in dollars), it's free (as in speech) He may very well ask you to pay for the software (as long as he also gives you the source), or he could (as many do) charge for any customizations or support you need.
I think you need to re-evaluate why you love the Open Source movement. Just look around you, and see the many companies that are profiting from this movement.
The premise of TFA is that if you're the leader in a field, you want to keep your code/design a secret and if you're one of those in the pack, you want to share your code so that you can better attack the ones at the top. At first glance it does seem to make sense, but then how does he explain why some of the industry leaders like IBM, Sun, Oracle, Dell, (even) Cisco and the myriad others that contribute to or sell or are otherwise associated with open source.
The reason the premise is flawed is because the author has looked at relative advantage only instead of absolute advantage. If a company at the top can make even more money by joining the open source movement, it will. If it can't (or feels it can't) then it will stay proprietary and fight.
What is more likely is that you hire a contract programmer to modify the already available GNUFabricCAD to satisfy your needs. Say the contract runs for a year and costs you $100K.
Any additional changes can be handled by the community or by hiring a programmer on short contracts. Overall it costs, say $150K which comes to $1500 for a 10 people license. And if the company does well and grows, it still only costs $150k for a 100 people license.
Also since the changes are given back to the community, this in turn helps the next company which needs a FabricCAD software. In most cases, open source software provides a better value proposition - not always but in most cases.
I should clarify that I was just trying to point out that the average/.ers (and the media's) definition of SaaS is wrong - for the same reasons you listed. The place where the change is happening is corporate America - and long term, either the quality will improve or those companies will die. I'm sure there are a few companies that will survive, those that really add value. But it's basically a new area which is drawing so much hype that every fly-by-night operator thinks they can offer software as a service, and they can't.
While I agree with you in that OSes aren't going any place, I think many slashdotters (and CIOs) are getting the whole Software as a Service phenomenon wrong. SaaS allows companies to outsource things which are not their core competency (like accounts, payroll, taxes, etc.) and focus on their strengths. This is especially true for small and mid-sized businesses, but I'm seeing even large corporations following suit.
You also have to remember that Google (for example) has "enterprise" versions that don't require you to store your data on their servers.
I had the same problem, but the installer did work for most people. My bet is that they did not have the resources to test the installation on all possible configurations. It worked for most configurations, but you and I were unlucky in that it didn't.
However, there's one way to great way in which we can help Ubuntu work better in future. Users like you and me need to get out and test the alpha/beta versions on our systems and when we find an issue, we need to report it, file a bug, etc. Complaining on slashdot will not make it work better.
These days only the rare banks do not support Firefox. And those can normally be fooled by changing your headers. Also, if your bank uses ActiveX, then you really need to rethink your banking decisions. With all the security issues associated with ActiveX, its surprising that your bank still continues to use it. I'd probably block ActiveX even in IE.
I wish I had mod points here. The parent is absolutely correct. If you justify using "any means available", then you are no different from the terrorists. That's where morals and ethics come in. That's the reason why some of us appalled by the actions of this US administration. Because more than any other time in the past, they have used the doctrine of necessity to justify any and every act that in other times would have been categorized as evil.
The link does not work in Firefox. I wish enough slashdotters using Firefox hit the site that they start supporting standards instead of particular browsers.
I agree that tables is a bad example (but it was what the OP used). However, the point is just as valid for art and literature. Most artists acknowledge that they derive inspiration from older works, either consciously or sub-consciously.
Imagine how poor the world would be if today's generation couldn't draw inspiration from the works of Picasso, Bach, Michaelangelo and the other giants on whose shoulders current artists stand. Imagine if the copyright on Principia Mathematica had not expired - science would be badly impacted.
I have no problems with copyrights as such, but they must expire in a reasonable time frame so that the future can gain the same advantages that yesterday's generation gained.
Slashdot Mirror
To me this is what seems to be wrong with copyright because it complicates an otherwise simple law. The question then becomes - how different is my arrangement of a Mozart or Beethoven work? This takes it out of the realm that can be easily understood by a jury and brings in all kinds of 'experts'.
It also allows the corporations with big pockets to threaten lawsuits even if they're only performing a song that is in the public domain.
This is another reason why the automatic copyright system is so flawed. If you had to apply for a copyright, it is quite possible that copyright would not have been granted for a performance of a public domain work. Also most of the copyfraud cases could be nipped in the bud.
I think the problem is that people can now use the Firehose to influence which stories we see. And since most people don't check the firehose too often, it can be (and maybe is being) influenced by the MS and Apple fans. That to me partly explains why we have been seeing too many of these stories lately. More interesting (and obscure) stories just don't pass muster.
Which is why I like the voting machines used in India - they're very simple and basically just counting machines. That makes it easier to verify that the code is secure.
Microsoft was caught doing something illegal - obviously they'll get bashed for this. I don't see anything wrong with that. Just like Apple got bashed (in spite of the fanbois) for the problems with Safari for Windows.
Strange how the OP is modded as Informative when even the author admits that he was misinformed. Can you say "reality distortion field"?
You forgot the "Hare Krishna!" people who go around selling Bhagwat Geetas
And also drop the "triple damages" clause, so that developers can do a patent search before re-inventing something.
Let me just point out a few instances when oil may have played a part in recent history.
- Saddam's campaign against the Kurds - why was he allowed to get away with this for so long?
- Why were the French and Russians so opposed to sanctions against Saddam?
- Sudan is already listed here
- Venezuela seems to be losing its democracy right in front of our eyes, and nobody seems to want to do anything.
- Why are the middle-eastern countries allowed to get away with the kind of autocratic behavior that we would not tolerate in our own countries
There are probably others where oil has played a part, but I can't recall them off the top of my head.My idea is simply that multiple protections should not apply. You cannot both have trade secrets and copyrights. Think of books or paintings - by their very nature, they cannot be kept trade secret. Now the way to print the book or mix paints can be a trade secret, but not the book itself. Similarly the source code cannot be both a trade secret and copyrighted. Any techniques used to create the actual code can be kept trade secret, however.
Now it could be argued that the source code is only the 'recipe' and not the product itself and hence deserves copyright. But again if you think of copyrighted recipes, they need to have been published to be copyrighted. The minute you publish your recipe (in a book, magazine or online), it becomes copyright and loses its trade secret status.
I hope you get my point now.
Someone had earlier posted about the four different types of "intellectual properties" - patents, copyright, trademark and trade secrets. I always find it pretty amazing that software seems to be the only field where all 4 protections could be available on the same piece of code.
A piece of code can be protected by patents, can be copyrighted, trademarked and even held a trade secret (closed source). What's so special about software that it mandates so much protection? I'd love to see just one protection available for software. For instance, if it's trade secret (closed source) then you don't get patent or copyright protection. If it's open source, then you get only copyright protection. For really core and non-obvious algorithms, you can get patent protection, but you will lose copyright protection in that case (say you will need to submit the code as part of the patent application, making it public domain).
Umm... when was the last time V. S. Naipaul lived in India, and I mean lived, not visited. He should not comment on things he has no clue about. The problem with many of the Indians living outside India is that they have been fed a lie that Hinduism is under attack in India and is dying. Nothing could be further from the truth, just going by the sheer number of people who are present whenever any so-called "Godman" comes to town.
I'm not denying that there is a section of the Indian polity that is often anti-hindu because of vote bank politics. But there is equally a section that is rabidly pro-hindu because of vote bank politics.
Have you ever stopped to wonder why every news story about Shiv Sena involves vandalism - they're never doing anything constructive, always destructive. It's no wonder then that they find themselves slowly losing favor in the eyes of the common man.
Ah! That explains it - if you remember the Debian Iceweasel stink a while back, non-official releases are not allowed to be named Firefox. Hence your browser identifies itself as Bon-Echo.
And that is exactly why packaging could be a boon for the average Joe. How many people really care where the stuff is installed?
Having said that, I feel that it's too late in the game to try to introduce package managers to windows. People are just so used to doing things one way that they're very unlikely to change.
No, I think you completely misunderstood the point of GPL software - it's not necessarily free (in dollars), it's free (as in speech) He may very well ask you to pay for the software (as long as he also gives you the source), or he could (as many do) charge for any customizations or support you need.
I think you need to re-evaluate why you love the Open Source movement. Just look around you, and see the many companies that are profiting from this movement.
The premise of TFA is that if you're the leader in a field, you want to keep your code/design a secret and if you're one of those in the pack, you want to share your code so that you can better attack the ones at the top. At first glance it does seem to make sense, but then how does he explain why some of the industry leaders like IBM, Sun, Oracle, Dell, (even) Cisco and the myriad others that contribute to or sell or are otherwise associated with open source.
The reason the premise is flawed is because the author has looked at relative advantage only instead of absolute advantage. If a company at the top can make even more money by joining the open source movement, it will. If it can't (or feels it can't) then it will stay proprietary and fight.
What is more likely is that you hire a contract programmer to modify the already available GNUFabricCAD to satisfy your needs. Say the contract runs for a year and costs you $100K.
Any additional changes can be handled by the community or by hiring a programmer on short contracts. Overall it costs, say $150K which comes to $1500 for a 10 people license. And if the company does well and grows, it still only costs $150k for a 100 people license.
Also since the changes are given back to the community, this in turn helps the next company which needs a FabricCAD software. In most cases, open source software provides a better value proposition - not always but in most cases.
I should clarify that I was just trying to point out that the average /.ers (and the media's) definition of SaaS is wrong - for the same reasons you listed. The place where the change is happening is corporate America - and long term, either the quality will improve or those companies will die. I'm sure there are a few companies that will survive, those that really add value. But it's basically a new area which is drawing so much hype that every fly-by-night operator thinks they can offer software as a service, and they can't.
While I agree with you in that OSes aren't going any place, I think many slashdotters (and CIOs) are getting the whole Software as a Service phenomenon wrong. SaaS allows companies to outsource things which are not their core competency (like accounts, payroll, taxes, etc.) and focus on their strengths. This is especially true for small and mid-sized businesses, but I'm seeing even large corporations following suit.
You also have to remember that Google (for example) has "enterprise" versions that don't require you to store your data on their servers.
I had the same problem, but the installer did work for most people. My bet is that they did not have the resources to test the installation on all possible configurations. It worked for most configurations, but you and I were unlucky in that it didn't.
However, there's one way to great way in which we can help Ubuntu work better in future. Users like you and me need to get out and test the alpha/beta versions on our systems and when we find an issue, we need to report it, file a bug, etc. Complaining on slashdot will not make it work better.
These days only the rare banks do not support Firefox. And those can normally be fooled by changing your headers. Also, if your bank uses ActiveX, then you really need to rethink your banking decisions. With all the security issues associated with ActiveX, its surprising that your bank still continues to use it. I'd probably block ActiveX even in IE.
I wish I had mod points here. The parent is absolutely correct. If you justify using "any means available", then you are no different from the terrorists. That's where morals and ethics come in. That's the reason why some of us appalled by the actions of this US administration. Because more than any other time in the past, they have used the doctrine of necessity to justify any and every act that in other times would have been categorized as evil.
The link does not work in Firefox. I wish enough slashdotters using Firefox hit the site that they start supporting standards instead of particular browsers.
I agree that tables is a bad example (but it was what the OP used). However, the point is just as valid for art and literature. Most artists acknowledge that they derive inspiration from older works, either consciously or sub-consciously.
Imagine how poor the world would be if today's generation couldn't draw inspiration from the works of Picasso, Bach, Michaelangelo and the other giants on whose shoulders current artists stand. Imagine if the copyright on Principia Mathematica had not expired - science would be badly impacted.
I have no problems with copyrights as such, but they must expire in a reasonable time frame so that the future can gain the same advantages that yesterday's generation gained.