I agree with this statement, but the case I'm worried about has nothing to do with internal use. I'm talking about someone making money off our code by sharing it will thousands of _external_ users. Surely that's not just internal fair use, even though my code never leaves their internal servers....
That's all well and good, but we've looked at about two dozen potential licenses, and are still not closer to getting what we want. We like the spirit of the GPL. The closest we've found so far is the Artistic - is that good enough?
Contrary to some early posters claiming that jamie's ideology leads him off-topic, I think it's perfectly fine. His topic is _not_ veganism or video games per se, but government hypocrisy - which is dramatically exposed in this instance. Sometimes it takes a free-software nut like RMS to expose hypocrisy, sometimes it takes a libertarian anti-gun lobbyist, and sometimes it takes a vegan. Having an ideology is not a problem, as long as you use to to expose real problems, IMHO.
I've worked in Linda (on which JS is based) when I took a class from Prof. Gelernter himself. It's definitely the most elegant parallel API I've come accross, and it is extremely elegant and simple. Best of all, much of the work of moving data around between machines is hidden by the environment, which does this in a very efficient way. In fact, I'm convinced that there is a way to get a Linda/JS system running on top of Freenet, which would give you instant access to a huge pool of system resources, and an internet-wide distribution mechanism. What do you think about that?
If this is done in a clueful way, it will actually be really beneficial. At first, I'm sure all companies will pay an equal deductible, as in the early days of car insurance. But over time, the insurance companies will start to collect stats on who does the best security, and adjust deductibles accordingly. If this is handled objectively, and it turns out that NT-based systems are 32% more likely to be DoSed, then companies will have to pay.
The nice thing is that, since money is on the line, the insurance company has a huge incentive to be objective and honest about what really works to prevent "hacking." My guess it that obscurity-based systems don't get rated as high as a Volvo:)
Well, except that our web site and its backend are written in PHP, so there is no binary. The only kind of distribution we _could_ do is as a source release, unless we started getting into application server territory. So, how does the GPL handle this case? In some sense, "compiling" a PHP app into a "binary" is really just generating the appropriate HTML for a browser. On that interpretation, isn't sending that HTML to users a distribution of the "binary?"
This whole debate has another side to it. For those of us on the corporate end of things (hey, I develop code for my own startup), the fact that big corporations could (potentially) get around the GPL is a huge disincentive for us to open-source our existing code. We don't mind sharing the work we've done (and I'm an ardent OSS fan), but our investors are #@$#@$ in their pants that one of our competitors could just come along and clone our awesome website in a second and we'd be screwed. Now, if that competitor had to disclose _their_ source in exchange, I wouldn't mind, because then I could incorporate their changes and improvements and we'd get essentially free development work.
However, it seems that it is not clear that operating a web page with software is considered a distribution under the GPL. I think this is essential if the GPL is to have any meaning whatsoever for web applications. As an example, consider the case of MySQL. Their old "free for non-commercial use" allowed corporations to run a MySQL database behind a webserver for free, because that was considered "internal" use, and not a redistribution. Although that allowed MySQL to get a significant market share among, say, mod_php users, it probably meant a lot of lost revenue for their parent company.
Now, since their parent company didn't really care (AFAIK) about this lost revenue, it was no big deal, but for a small company like mine, this could be utterly disastrous. OTOH, we have a pretty substantial HR application that I think the OSS community could really benefit from. Maybe it could be integrated into a scheme like the GNU Enterprise suite.
But first, we have to be sure the GPL will protect us from being blatantly ripped off. Any suggestions? Should we just take our chances with the GPL? Does it cover this case? Is there another license that addresses this concern?
When I was at Microsoft, I actually suggested a feature to some people in the IE team, which (unfortunately) got dubbed the "porn button."
It was supposed to work just like the Opera button that lets you instantly toggle between your default colors/font/backgrounds and the ones on the annoying site you're browsing.
This would just be a quick toggle button that would enable/disable Javascript and other annoying technologies while you are browsing on some annoying site. IE5 takes a full minute to change the "advanced" options to effect this change. UGH!
It's good to see the USPTO moving towards a more democratic approach. Although I doubt that ESR will be able to effect an upheaval in the patent law, I think he will be able to introduce the suits over at USPTO to the goodness of open-source methods. I mean, if the USPTO really has more patent applications than they have time to look at, why not get citizens involved, on a voluntary basis, to do research for the excess? Sure, there are issues with confidentiality, etc. but many patents (like Amazon's) are simply new patents on existing implementations, so there would be no issue with having semi-public peer-review.
It works for academic journals, why not for patents?
It's a company that produces a "VXML" platform that let's you program a phone voice system. Sample code #111 is a rock-paper-scissors game. Basically, you call up and play against a whiny, simulated kid voice. You can even "say" your commands...
In order to view the source, etc. you need to get a free login of their "developer studio" - but if you don't want to do that, here's how to play:
Call Tellme Studio: (1-877-461-3597)
Enter T-R-Y-I-T (87948) as the Developer ID
Enter T-R-Y-I (8794) as the Pin
Enter the code example's 3-digit Code Reference ID (in this case, 111)
right now, somebody is probably turning your background information into a comodity and trading it with other fans, just to make some silicon valley fat cat rich. that really chaps my hide!
I work for a company that has been grappling with this for a while now. One of our big selling points (to investors) is our "proprietary technology" that we have developed. I've been pushing for us to open-source, but it's tricky because then our competitors might immediately grab our nifty new features and we'd lose our competitive edge. So, if anyone has ideas about how to convince our investors to go ahead and open-source anyway, I'd love to hear.
One argument I know will work is that by going open-source we'll attract a lot of attention from places like/. - so if you can find it in your heart to come take a look at the open-source project home page we've set up (http://enzyme.sourceforge.net) that would help too...
thanks!
Want to work at Transmeta? MicronPC? Hedgefund.net? AT&T?
let's not be too negative yet. I still think could be a really interesting step, as long as appropriate measures are made to confirm the digital signature for important transactions. Just like a bank won't give you a big loan without you coming in in person so they can verify that you're real. It would be nice if we could get a setup like current credit cards - not 100% secure but if your signature gets compromised you have pretty easy recourse to have the damage undone.
Is that feasible? Technically? Legally?
Want to work at Transmeta? MicronPC? Hedgefund.net? AT&T?
If instead of degrading existing bandwidth (which it seems to me would be counter-productive, as it degrades the user experience of their users, who upgraded from AOL hoping to see blazing fast super speeds), Excite takes the money they get from sponsorships and uses it to invest in additional network infrastructure (thus increasing overall capacity) then they will leverage those sponsorships into a boon for all of us.
Instead of getting angry, let's see if we can convince them to take this approach instead.
Want to work at Transmeta? MicronPC? Hedgefund.net? AT&T?
To be fair, it should be pointed out that MEtallica's position is _not_ that Napster is causing them to lose money, or that it is not good for them to communicate with their fans. Rather, they are insisting that they have a right to decide when and how their music is distributed. Thus, in the early days, they encouraged bootleg tapes because they believed in that. What they want is permission to opt-out of the Napster scheme, so that the VC backers of Napster don't get rich off of their intellectual property.
This is interesting, because on/. we _usually_ get all upset at the crazy VC internet culture, and people making $$$$$$ with bad technology. Why "we" don't feel that way about Napster kind of puzzles me.
Want to work at Transmeta? MicronPC? Hedgefund.net? AT&T?
Slashdot Mirror
I also posted this story over at which has generated quite an interesting discussion as well (it's still in the "moderate submissions" queue for now).
my bad. should read libertarian anti-gun-control lobbyist.
I agree with this statement, but the case I'm worried about has nothing to do with internal use. I'm talking about someone making money off our code by sharing it will thousands of _external_ users. Surely that's not just internal fair use, even though my code never leaves their internal servers....
That's all well and good, but we've looked at about two dozen potential licenses, and are still not closer to getting what we want. We like the spirit of the GPL. The closest we've found so far is the Artistic - is that good enough?
Contrary to some early posters claiming that jamie's ideology leads him off-topic, I think it's perfectly fine. His topic is _not_ veganism or video games per se, but government hypocrisy - which is dramatically exposed in this instance. Sometimes it takes a free-software nut like RMS to expose hypocrisy, sometimes it takes a libertarian anti-gun lobbyist, and sometimes it takes a vegan. Having an ideology is not a problem, as long as you use to to expose real problems, IMHO.
All easily implemented with the Enzyme open-source project code.
I've worked in Linda (on which JS is based) when I took a class from Prof. Gelernter himself. It's definitely the most elegant parallel API I've come accross, and it is extremely elegant and simple. Best of all, much of the work of moving data around between machines is hidden by the environment, which does this in a very efficient way. In fact, I'm convinced that there is a way to get a Linda/JS system running on top of Freenet, which would give you instant access to a huge pool of system resources, and an internet-wide distribution mechanism. What do you think about that?
If this is done in a clueful way, it will actually be really beneficial. At first, I'm sure all companies will pay an equal deductible, as in the early days of car insurance. But over time, the insurance companies will start to collect stats on who does the best security, and adjust deductibles accordingly. If this is handled objectively, and it turns out that NT-based systems are 32% more likely to be DoSed, then companies will have to pay.
:)
The nice thing is that, since money is on the line, the insurance company has a huge incentive to be objective and honest about what really works to prevent "hacking." My guess it that obscurity-based systems don't get rated as high as a Volvo
Hey! Moderators! We've got some facts here, get this up over the flamebait and American Values which have nothing to do with anything!
cheese geek - it's got a kind of ring to it, don't you think? Better update the Katz Filter...
Well, except that our web site and its backend are written in PHP, so there is no binary. The only kind of distribution we _could_ do is as a source release, unless we started getting into application server territory. So, how does the GPL handle this case? In some sense, "compiling" a PHP app into a "binary" is really just generating the appropriate HTML for a browser. On that interpretation, isn't sending that HTML to users a distribution of the "binary?"
However, it seems that it is not clear that operating a web page with software is considered a distribution under the GPL. I think this is essential if the GPL is to have any meaning whatsoever for web applications. As an example, consider the case of MySQL. Their old "free for non-commercial use" allowed corporations to run a MySQL database behind a webserver for free, because that was considered "internal" use, and not a redistribution. Although that allowed MySQL to get a significant market share among, say, mod_php users, it probably meant a lot of lost revenue for their parent company.
Now, since their parent company didn't really care (AFAIK) about this lost revenue, it was no big deal, but for a small company like mine, this could be utterly disastrous. OTOH, we have a pretty substantial HR application that I think the OSS community could really benefit from. Maybe it could be integrated into a scheme like the GNU Enterprise suite.
But first, we have to be sure the GPL will protect us from being blatantly ripped off. Any suggestions? Should we just take our chances with the GPL? Does it cover this case? Is there another license that addresses this concern?
Katz has just released his first piece of FUD against a competing technology.
When I was at Microsoft, I actually suggested a feature to some people in the IE team, which (unfortunately) got dubbed the "porn button."
It was supposed to work just like the Opera button that lets you instantly toggle between your default colors/font/backgrounds and the ones on the annoying site you're browsing.
This would just be a quick toggle button that would enable/disable Javascript and other annoying technologies while you are browsing on some annoying site. IE5 takes a full minute to change the "advanced" options to effect this change. UGH!
It's good to see the USPTO moving towards a more democratic approach. Although I doubt that ESR will be able to effect an upheaval in the patent law, I think he will be able to introduce the suits over at USPTO to the goodness of open-source methods. I mean, if the USPTO really has more patent applications than they have time to look at, why not get citizens involved, on a voluntary basis, to do research for the excess? Sure, there are issues with confidentiality, etc. but many patents (like Amazon's) are simply new patents on existing implementations, so there would be no issue with having semi-public peer-review.
It works for academic journals, why not for patents?
That's what we have Freenet for.
There is also a GPL version of Max written in Java called jMax. This was posted on /. a while ago.
http://studio.tellme.c om/home/documentation/example-111.html
It's a company that produces a "VXML" platform that let's you program a phone voice system. Sample code #111 is a rock-paper-scissors game. Basically, you call up and play against a whiny, simulated kid voice. You can even "say" your commands...
In order to view the source, etc. you need to get a free login of their "developer studio" - but if you don't want to do that, here's how to play:
Enjoy!
coincidentally, I just wrote a piece on Kuro5hin.org about this very topic. Check it out if you're interested.
One of the big arguments in favor of continued trade with China, instead of a Cu ba-style</a> embargo, is that increased trade will translate to increased contact with the west, leading to increased information about Good Western Things (tm) which will lead, ienvitably, to greater human rights and democratization for the people of China.
<p>
This kind of thing seems to be a good counter-argument.
right now, somebody is probably turning your background information into a comodity and trading it with other fans, just to make some silicon valley fat cat rich. that really chaps my hide!
now, i'm going back to the drums...
One argument I know will work is that by going open-source we'll attract a lot of attention from places like /. - so if you can find it in your heart to come take a look at the open-source project home page we've set up (http://enzyme.sourceforge.net) that would help too...
thanks!
Want to work at Transmeta? MicronPC? Hedgefund.net? AT&T?
Is that feasible? Technically? Legally?
Want to work at Transmeta? MicronPC? Hedgefund.net? AT&T?
Instead of getting angry, let's see if we can convince them to take this approach instead.
Want to work at Transmeta? MicronPC? Hedgefund.net? AT&T?
This is interesting, because on
Want to work at Transmeta? MicronPC? Hedgefund.net? AT&T?