I think the answer to most discrimination issues *is* to be totally neutral (not to discrimination, but to whatever basis people are using to dicriminate). Black? White? Latino? Gay? Lesbian? Bi? I don't care...how well can you program? What experience do you have unit testing? Are you familiar with functional programming methods?
I'm usually against MS, but on this, I agree...they shouldn't have a position on issues like this; these issues are personal and irrelevant to the business. Making it out like they're suddenly a "bad guy" because of THIS, of all things, is kind of absurd.
Agreed...there is a distinction. I guess I'd say it may be "in poor form", rather than "morally wrong."
At this point though, no truces will be declared. It was a bit childish for them to simply drop support for the free Linux client. I don't see this ending until some complete replacement is coded that is free (as in speech).
Too bad, really. BK seems pretty good...they could have done something like Trolltech did and dual licensed it. That would've paid the bills AND gotten them notoriety as a solid repository from the FOSS folks.
Reverse engineering is not morally wrong...in fact, it is specifically protected by all the copyright laws in the US.
Heck, "reverse engineering" is "figuring out how something works", AKA "hacking" (NOT "cracking"). This is the basis of most good technological progress and, in a different realm, science.
Yes, except that airing something is "commericial release" since it's filled with "commercials", i.e. people who are PAYING the broadcast company a lot of money to air the program, along with their advertisements. So yes, someone is paying, so the airing is certainly commercial release.
The DMCA has no applicability here. I suggest folks read it to see what it has to say about things like this (try a google search for "dmca text" and hit "I'm feeling lucky"), but here's the interesting part:
(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
`(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
`(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
`(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `interoperability' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.
To summarize: Adobe can make photoshop compatible with no fears of being sued under the DMCA. Oh, and by the way, if you RTFA, no one from Adobe OR Nikon ever mentioned the DMCA. In fact, all people have noted is that Nikon has encrypted the white balance information. The rest was speculation from the editorial staff over at PhotoShopNews.
Computers are REALLY good at searching from the beginning of the book to the end. There's nothing wrong with searching that way for a modest number of documents.
Honestly, I put all my docs that I care about searching into a directory ~/docs and just run glimpse. It's been around since 1994, and is not some rinky dink program...it is a fast, indexed, search engine for your computer. It supports regular expressions (with limitations), as well as the usual keyword, date, etc. matching.
But all of this is to say: grep *is* modern, since glimpse is based on agrep. I really have a distaste for people that bash (no pun intended) the traditional UNIX tools because they are not "modern" or "advanced". That's specious - it's like saying that bash is "modern", but printf() is not. How the heck do you think bash prints things to the screen? Everytime we try to start from the ground up building a new "modern" tool and ignore the *real* tools, we do ourselves an injustice, and we waste time. There's no point in throwing away everything we've done that worked up until now. We should be using the "old" tools to build more sophisticated ones.
In 10 years, all your "modern" tools will fall by the wayside, but we'll still have grep and glimpse, and perhaps the next generation built on those two. Google Desktop search and Longhorn Search (if it's out yet) and Spotlight will be rewritten 5 times, but the basic tools for searching, like grep, will always be relevant.
This, of course, applies in a much broader context. The UNIX philosophy of creating basic tools and using them in concert to create larger, more complex tools is echoed in good software development practices, and in both cases, it is The Right Way.
We have carefully reviewed the existing OSI approved licenses and found none of them to meet our needs, and thus have reluctantly drafted a new open source license based on the Mozilla Public License, version 1.1 ("MPL"). We do appreciate the issue of license proliferation, however, and have worked hard to make the Common Development and Distribution License ("CDDL") as reusable as possible. Additionally, we have attempted to address the problems we perceived in existing open source licenses that led us to conclude that reusing those existing licenses was impractical.
We chose to use the MPL as a base, since it already had a number of attributes we were looking for in a license:
* Requirement that the source of modifications be made available; this helps encourage code reuse and a vibrant community.
* Requirement that the source of modifications be shared under the open source license; this helps encourage that open source remains open source.
* Ability to distribute executables under a different license; this gives businesses more flexibility in licensing their derived works.
* A "files based" definition of modifications and covered software; this makes it easy to combine code with code distributed under different licenses.
* Explicit patent license; this makes it easier for businesses to use the software without concerns over patent rights.
* Provision for termination of rights in response to patent claims (i.e. "patent peace" provision); this helps discourage patent litigation amongst the community, which we felt to be A Good Thing.
The MPL came closest to meeting our needs. We felt that it had a number of issues, though, which prevented us from simply using that license or one of its variants.
Once we embarked down the path of creating a new license, we focused on certain high level goals. We wished to create a license that was simpler, less burdensome for contributors, clear and consistent in the use of terms and language, and that was as reusable and general as possible. In addition, we made a number of specific improvements, a few of which are highlighted here.
* Fixed the "Effect of New Versions" problem. We added an option to make Covered Software available under a specific version of the license, rather than allowing the use of future license versions. This change was made to make the license more reusable by others: it addresses the concern that the license steward could change the terms of the license in ways that are not compatible with a community's (and the Initial Developer's) values and objectives.
* Focused the "patent peace" provisions to cover only software released under this license. We felt that this would make the license more acceptable to a diverse community of contributors, whether large or small. We strengthened the the penalties of the remaining provision, however, since we do believe that "patent peace" has an important role to play in open source licenses.
* Simplified many of the Required Notices (or in a few cases, removed the requirement) since they seemed overly specific and burdensome.
* Clarified the definition of Modifications, to make it easier for readers to understand what is covered by the license and what is not.
A more detailed list of changes made to create the CDDL license along with the associated rationale can be found here.
---------- Bottom line: Sun doesn't want to use the GPL. If that is the case, then nothing they do will EVER allow code swapping from Linux to Solaris, because Linux IS GPL, and moving code from Linux into Solaris would require Solairs to be released under GPL, which it cannot be. This is true with tons of OS licenses, not just CDDL. I'm not saying what they did is great, but I can see their logic...they want the benefit of the community, and they don't want to lose control of their code, whether it be Java or Solaris. Sadly, they're not e
Sure it is. This is about spyware. This is about spam-sending zombie boxes. This is about programs like BackOrifice.
If you're not installing software, and a box pops up and says "Please type in the admin password to install Mhfyshc456.sh", even a novice user will be suspicious.
Now, you can argue "Anytime a computer asks for a password, someone will enter it!", but you're making what is a technical issue into a social engineering issue. I would assume that most slashdotters know that social engineering will win out every time...it is simply the easiest way to break into a system 90% of the time. So sure, the system is vulnerable, we knew that.
But to say that since someone can be convinced to supply a password is a reason to scrap passwords is obviously incorrect. Michael *doesn't* have a point. Under an unprivileged user scenario, 90% of power users and 30% of normal users will be wise to the ruse, and it won't work. The remaining folks will have at least been notified that something occurred, and if they start to notice odd behavior, they will have an idea where it came from. With all users having root, 100% of users will never be with wiser that their system was just comprimised.
You can't argue one system is just as secure as the other.
When you see a reply that looks fishy like that, click "Parent"...he wasn't replying to you. He was replying to a Mod 0 AC that asserted that Tridge violated a license.
You logic fails you. You're not the one who gets to determine what someone else's product sells for, they are.
If they ask for $200 for 2-5 licenses, then that's what they want. Not $650. It is not deprivation if you're giving them what they ask for. It IS deprivation if you are violating their license and NOT giving them what they ask for.
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time,and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.
Face it: you violated the EULA. Tons of people do it (I've done it!), and it is what it is...some people call it stealing, or copyright infringment, or whatever. It doesn't matter what you call it. The fact is, you should have paid for the other copy. Whether anyone cares, or whether you'll get caught doesn't matter. Just face the truth and move on. And, if you decide you did the wrong thing, pay for the other copy.
Yes, but they're not just using LynxOS. They're also using BlueCat Linux, which I'm a bit worried about. I called Lynuxworks asking them if I could have access to the source code once I got my hands on the BlueCat distro. They put me off, didn't return calls, and told me they couldn't discuss that with me at "this time." I'm not saying they won't give it to me, but they're not being forthcoming, either.
Combine this with the stunt they pulled with User Mode Linux (see this story) in which they used GPL'ed code, and submitted their changes back in an uncompilable tarball (no patch), and I'm getting pretty suspicious. After working out what changed and generating a patch, the UML team still couldn't make their changes compile. Presumably, Lynuxworks could (would good what the changes be unless they compiled?), so this again would indicate a violation of the GPL.
I'm hoping FCS switches back to looking at Red Hat - at least they have a track record. When I found out FCS was using Lynuxworks, my first reation was "Who?"
1) to prevent your competitors from using your tech without paying
2) to prevent them from developing the tech you developed first, patenting it, and then trying to leverage that. Take note, Carmack vs. Creative.
In case 2, they *could* cite prior art, but that assumes they've already been sued, are in court, and probably had operations suspended using the algorithm in question. Pain in the ass, and loss of revenue stream. Sure, Carmack could've taken Creative to court, but they chose their timing carefully...just a few days before the release of Doom 3. If he'd fought, it wouldn't have been on shelves, automatically making the figth much more expensive for him than for creative, regardless of who "won". Easier to just settle, even if you are in the right.
Anyway, just because most of us disagree with how the US patent system is set up doesn't mean we can hold every company that patents something as evil. Under our system, sometimes it is defensive. When Google starts suing, that'll be something.
I'm sure a lot of Slashdotters know the feeling when you get on the tech support line and feel like they treat you like you know nothing, when in fact they're the ones that don't know what they're talking about...
Well, with LAC, they'll treat you as a peer. First off, they request special instructions when you order, if you'd like a RAID setup, what runlevel you'd like to use, what display manager, what desktop environment, etc. They're also cooperative. For example, if I say something is broken, and tell them how I tested it to determine that, they don't run me through some inane troubleshooting sequence on the phone anyway. They picked up on what I was saying right away and shipped out a new part that day. Their response time to emails is very fast as well, about an hour or so in my experience.
Anyway, I'm not getting a kickback or anything, but it is the first time I've had a universally good experience with a computer vendor. I found out about them from a pretty good list of pre-installed Linux vendors over at the Debian site.
I don't understand this attitude at all...since when was the GPL, and the Free Software Foundation for that matter, about paying anyone anything?
If developers using the GPL want to make money off of companies using the code for commercial purposes, then do what Trolltech did with Qt and dual license.
Personally, I don't think the FSF has any place getting into the economics of the business model - their only say should be in the fate of the code. In fact, v2 essentially states that that won't get involved in how you make money when they basically say "Sell it if you want, for however much you want, all we care about is that if you distribute, you have to give away machine readable source as well, licensed under this license."
If you can't even modify the code without PAYING someone - well, let's just say that it wouldn't be FREE software, now would it? Now I'll concede, they're not demanding money, per se. FTFA:
"If you look at the market, Yahoo, eBay, IBM, Amazon, Google have all sunk millions into the GPL infrastructure," Olson said. "Not only are we changing the rules, we are changing them retroactively. With the new way, it lets the customer pay with either their source code or with their wallet."
I think there may be a place for "paying" with the modified source, but let's not get into the "paying with your wallet" part, OK? If you want money, as I said before, just dual license.
Did you even read his post? He said he included version 2, but didn't explicitly state version 2 when he says "Released under GNU GPL". His question was if including version 2 explicit enough, or should he SAY version 2 as well.
To address GP, I'd put it in the text as well, specifically citing version 2. If you have a question, others will too. Best to remove as much ambiguity as possible.
Actually, *you're* missing the point: the point was to explain why Sony would not release specs on UMD.
Considering releasing UMD burners and media would be even more expensive than a flash cart for GBA, the argument that providing a way to write media for it would kill the console doesn't make sense. It happened with GBA, and obviously the GBA has done wonderfully.
I agree...and property development is a specific instance of a general way to make money that is similar: investments. You do work up front with no pay and get continuing profits later on.
Though, I have to admit, as I am in real estate myself, the work by no means ends once the property is developed. Further, as in your example, people are in fact "subscribing" to use (live in) what you have built...they have not paid you a flat fee for indefinite use, as is the case with a software "product". And you, of course, continue to provide a service for the rent they pay; namely, upkeep and maintenance of the building and related property.
But my central point was not that "no other business model exists like this". My main point is that there is a much better way to orchestrate the business model to match the reality of the workflow, benefiting both consumers and developers.
You're not understanding me. The question still remains about whether a licensing agreement can remove the allowance under copyright law to reverse engineer something for interoperability.
If you doubt me, I still refer you to the link above. However, I will add this: the power of the licensing agreement stems from copyright law itself, and while it may seem the two are independent, many (including courts) view them as intertwined. One of the central questions is whether companies can leverage copyright law (through licensing) to remove a priviledge that is protected under copyright law.
Suffice it to say that a lot of intellectual property experts believe that such a licensing agreement is not binding insofar as it denies the licensee certain actions protected under copyright law.
Again, I urge you (if you are interested in this subject matter), to read about the Bnetd case on eff.org and see how this very subject is still being hotly debated.
I read your post twice, and I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but I'll do my best.
It seems you're asserting that as a product becomes more mature (and therefore, less bug ridden) that people will settle for the last release and cancel the subscription.
This is certainly an issue to a degree, but not more so than with the current "add bloated features to sell a new version" model we're looking at with MS Office, for example.
Porting the software is not a bad idea. Take the case of a game, for example. You could continue to develop add-on maps and gameplay types, while also wooing Linux or Mac customers by developing a version for their platforms. There is a hitch in this case, which is "why not just wait until the Linux version is out, and then subscribe, while others had to pay all along?" This is a problem, and I'm not sure how you'd deal with it. Perhaps a minimum subscription time, like 3 or 4 months at a go, for a few dollars a month would eliminate the folks who would pay the few dollars for one month, but only when they needed an upgrade. The goal here is to foster a relationship with customer feedback.
In the case of a piece of business software, especially something that is networked, work will always be ongoing as operating systems progress and new hardware comes out that people want supported. Right now, this type of development is supported by the sales of the old product, but under the subscription system, companies that needed the software would be very interested in paying for security updates and driver updates to support their ever-changing hardware.
And this actually highlights the problem with the current system: we "sell" a copy of the software, and people assume the bug fixes and security updates will be provided free of charge. The time and money that go into that work have to come from somewhere, and the subscription model allows for this. It also gives developers incentive to be truly innovative and responsive to customer needs, because they are constantly working for your continued subscription. This is not the case under our current model.
If reverse engineering is explicitly forbidden in a license, and someone has agreed to that license, then reverse engineering is illegal.
Well, that's the question, isn't it? You state this like it is obvious, but it isn't obvious. Reverse engineering for interoperability is protected under US copyright law AND the DMCA. In fact, there is at least one court case pending right now to determine this very issue. Read more about it here. Very interesting stuff.
Anyway, given that
The OSDL had the license
the employee was NOT employed by OSDL to do the reverse engineering and
reverse engineering is protected under copyright law
I could see OSDL suing BitMover for breach of contract, which seems backwards, but I really think it is questionable if they gave BitMover any cause to do this, and it is going to cost them dearly to migrate over the entire version history to a new format, especially from one that is proprietary and needs to be reverse engineered before the move can happen.
This distopia you speak of where people are subscribing to software is in fact a utopia.
A subscription model to software is in fact how it *should* be. Introversion, the three-man coding team in the UK that codes out of their bedrooms, just released a new game called Darwinia. In their interviews, they talked a bit about their last release, Uplink, and mentioned how odd it was to work 10s of thousands of hours with no pay, and then suddenly stop work, and get tons of money. They pointed out that this was VERY different from just about every other job model, including entertainers like rock bands, who make most of their money touring (making money as they work). Obviously, anyone who is salaried or gets hourly wage also makes the money as they work. Not so with independent developers.
In fact, I would go even further and say the GPL lends itself to a subscription model. While I don't love Transgaming, they understand how it should work. People keep thinking that software is a "product", one that we box up and sell on shelves in a store. It isn't. Software, more than ever, is an ongoing relationship between the users and the developers. The GPL captures this, and so does a subscription model. I don't like MS anymore than the next Slashdotter, but if they are really looking at subscription, that is a good way to go. The developers get paid as they work, which means they always have an incentive to fix bugs, add features, streamline code, etc., because they continue to get paid to do so. It also allows them to release at least some of their code under GPL, because you're not just paying for the code, you're paying for the ongoing work on the code. Anytime you want to stick with where you are (keep the current version), you can. But if you want to get the most up-to-date fixes, pay for the time they spent to do that work, or, do it yourself with the old codebase.
I honestly believe that this is the way software should work. Software should never be sold, but people can still make a living writing it. Basically, developers should sell their time and talent, not the software.
Now, MS might be doing a model more along the lines of "You can only use Office 2017 as long as you pay...if you don't pay, no more Word for you!". This is also a subscription model, and it clearly isn't a good option. But not *all* subcription models are bad, and in fact, as I've said, some are good.
It's not the notes that are copyrighted...it's her performance of those notes contained on whatever medium, which is going to be a hell of a lot more than 5 bytes.
Besides, it's not the CSS source code that's copyrighted, Jon was talking about the actual numerical code used by the CSS algorithm to decrypt a DVD. The algorithm might be patentable, and the code for the algorithm may be copyrightable, but the code used to unlock a DVD is not.
It is this last code that I think he was referring to, and no one could deem that copyrightable. I've probably got a sequence of bytes in this post that has been used to decrypt a DVD...no one in their right mind would try to call me out on copyright infringement.
The adhesion contract issue was brought up and specifically discussed in the Bnetd finding by the judge. He argued that as long as the user has a choice in clicking "OK" (which he determined a user does with a EULA), then all is fair. Nevermind that the publisher already has your money, and you are in a position of no leverage. It is entirely your burden at that point to return the software and try to get your money back.
What makes all this so interesting is that in the face of amazing precedent that would indicate that EULAs are not enforceable, given that their terms are often not known at the point of sale, as well as the issue of adhesion, courts perist in finding them to be valid and enforceable as long as the user clicks "OK". We would be moving in the right direction by requiring the EULA to be available in the store. I'd like to see some kind of legislation (much like the legislation that called for nutrition information) to appear that requires a simpler breakdown of what EULAs require, so that people would at least KNOW what they are supposedly agreeing to.
Let us hope, then, that the authors of libmimic did not have to click through a EULA prohibiting reverse engineering.
Slashdot Mirror
Right on.
I think the answer to most discrimination issues *is* to be totally neutral (not to discrimination, but to whatever basis people are using to dicriminate). Black? White? Latino? Gay? Lesbian? Bi? I don't care...how well can you program? What experience do you have unit testing? Are you familiar with functional programming methods?
I'm usually against MS, but on this, I agree...they shouldn't have a position on issues like this; these issues are personal and irrelevant to the business. Making it out like they're suddenly a "bad guy" because of THIS, of all things, is kind of absurd.
Agreed...there is a distinction. I guess I'd say it may be "in poor form", rather than "morally wrong."
At this point though, no truces will be declared. It was a bit childish for them to simply drop support for the free Linux client. I don't see this ending until some complete replacement is coded that is free (as in speech).
Too bad, really. BK seems pretty good...they could have done something like Trolltech did and dual licensed it. That would've paid the bills AND gotten them notoriety as a solid repository from the FOSS folks.
Reverse engineering is not morally wrong...in fact, it is specifically protected by all the copyright laws in the US.
Heck, "reverse engineering" is "figuring out how something works", AKA "hacking" (NOT "cracking"). This is the basis of most good technological progress and, in a different realm, science.
Yes, except that airing something is "commericial release" since it's filled with "commercials", i.e. people who are PAYING the broadcast company a lot of money to air the program, along with their advertisements. So yes, someone is paying, so the airing is certainly commercial release.
(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
`(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
`(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
`(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `interoperability' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.
To summarize: Adobe can make photoshop compatible with no fears of being sued under the DMCA. Oh, and by the way, if you RTFA, no one from Adobe OR Nikon ever mentioned the DMCA. In fact, all people have noted is that Nikon has encrypted the white balance information. The rest was speculation from the editorial staff over at PhotoShopNews.
Computers are REALLY good at searching from the beginning of the book to the end. There's nothing wrong with searching that way for a modest number of documents.
Honestly, I put all my docs that I care about searching into a directory ~/docs and just run glimpse. It's been around since 1994, and is not some rinky dink program...it is a fast, indexed, search engine for your computer. It supports regular expressions (with limitations), as well as the usual keyword, date, etc. matching.
But all of this is to say: grep *is* modern, since glimpse is based on agrep. I really have a distaste for people that bash (no pun intended) the traditional UNIX tools because they are not "modern" or "advanced". That's specious - it's like saying that bash is "modern", but printf() is not. How the heck do you think bash prints things to the screen? Everytime we try to start from the ground up building a new "modern" tool and ignore the *real* tools, we do ourselves an injustice, and we waste time. There's no point in throwing away everything we've done that worked up until now. We should be using the "old" tools to build more sophisticated ones.
In 10 years, all your "modern" tools will fall by the wayside, but we'll still have grep and glimpse, and perhaps the next generation built on those two. Google Desktop search and Longhorn Search (if it's out yet) and Spotlight will be rewritten 5 times, but the basic tools for searching, like grep, will always be relevant.
This, of course, applies in a much broader context. The UNIX philosophy of creating basic tools and using them in concert to create larger, more complex tools is echoed in good software development practices, and in both cases, it is The Right Way.
http://www.sun.com/cddl/CDDL_why_summary.html:
Executive Summary
We have carefully reviewed the existing OSI approved licenses and found none of them to meet our needs, and thus have reluctantly drafted a new open source license based on the Mozilla Public License, version 1.1 ("MPL"). We do appreciate the issue of license proliferation, however, and have worked hard to make the Common Development and Distribution License ("CDDL") as reusable as possible. Additionally, we have attempted to address the problems we perceived in existing open source licenses that led us to conclude that reusing those existing licenses was impractical.
We chose to use the MPL as a base, since it already had a number of attributes we were looking for in a license:
* Requirement that the source of modifications be made available; this helps encourage code reuse and a vibrant community.
* Requirement that the source of modifications be shared under the open source license; this helps encourage that open source remains open source.
* Ability to distribute executables under a different license; this gives businesses more flexibility in licensing their derived works.
* A "files based" definition of modifications and covered software; this makes it easy to combine code with code distributed under different licenses.
* Explicit patent license; this makes it easier for businesses to use the software without concerns over patent rights.
* Provision for termination of rights in response to patent claims (i.e. "patent peace" provision); this helps discourage patent litigation amongst the community, which we felt to be A Good Thing.
The MPL came closest to meeting our needs. We felt that it had a number of issues, though, which prevented us from simply using that license or one of its variants.
Once we embarked down the path of creating a new license, we focused on certain high level goals. We wished to create a license that was simpler, less burdensome for contributors, clear and consistent in the use of terms and language, and that was as reusable and general as possible. In addition, we made a number of specific improvements, a few of which are highlighted here.
* Fixed the "Effect of New Versions" problem. We added an option to make Covered Software available under a specific version of the license, rather than allowing the use of future license versions. This change was made to make the license more reusable by others: it addresses the concern that the license steward could change the terms of the license in ways that are not compatible with a community's (and the Initial Developer's) values and objectives.
* Focused the "patent peace" provisions to cover only software released under this license. We felt that this would make the license more acceptable to a diverse community of contributors, whether large or small. We strengthened the the penalties of the remaining provision, however, since we do believe that "patent peace" has an important role to play in open source licenses.
* Simplified many of the Required Notices (or in a few cases, removed the requirement) since they seemed overly specific and burdensome.
* Clarified the definition of Modifications, to make it easier for readers to understand what is covered by the license and what is not.
A more detailed list of changes made to create the CDDL license along with the associated rationale can be found here.
----------
Bottom line: Sun doesn't want to use the GPL. If that is the case, then nothing they do will EVER allow code swapping from Linux to Solaris, because Linux IS GPL, and moving code from Linux into Solaris would require Solairs to be released under GPL, which it cannot be. This is true with tons of OS licenses, not just CDDL. I'm not saying what they did is great, but I can see their logic...they want the benefit of the community, and they don't want to lose control of their code, whether it be Java or Solaris. Sadly, they're not e
Sure it is. This is about spyware. This is about spam-sending zombie boxes. This is about programs like BackOrifice.
If you're not installing software, and a box pops up and says "Please type in the admin password to install Mhfyshc456.sh", even a novice user will be suspicious.
Now, you can argue "Anytime a computer asks for a password, someone will enter it!", but you're making what is a technical issue into a social engineering issue. I would assume that most slashdotters know that social engineering will win out every time...it is simply the easiest way to break into a system 90% of the time. So sure, the system is vulnerable, we knew that.
But to say that since someone can be convinced to supply a password is a reason to scrap passwords is obviously incorrect. Michael *doesn't* have a point. Under an unprivileged user scenario, 90% of power users and 30% of normal users will be wise to the ruse, and it won't work. The remaining folks will have at least been notified that something occurred, and if they start to notice odd behavior, they will have an idea where it came from. With all users having root, 100% of users will never be with wiser that their system was just comprimised.
You can't argue one system is just as secure as the other.
When you see a reply that looks fishy like that, click "Parent"...he wasn't replying to you. He was replying to a Mod 0 AC that asserted that Tridge violated a license.
If they ask for $200 for 2-5 licenses, then that's what they want. Not $650. It is not deprivation if you're giving them what they ask for. It IS deprivation if you are violating their license and NOT giving them what they ask for.
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions. A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time,and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.
Face it: you violated the EULA. Tons of people do it (I've done it!), and it is what it is...some people call it stealing, or copyright infringment, or whatever. It doesn't matter what you call it. The fact is, you should have paid for the other copy. Whether anyone cares, or whether you'll get caught doesn't matter. Just face the truth and move on. And, if you decide you did the wrong thing, pay for the other copy.
Combine this with the stunt they pulled with User Mode Linux (see this story) in which they used GPL'ed code, and submitted their changes back in an uncompilable tarball (no patch), and I'm getting pretty suspicious. After working out what changed and generating a patch, the UML team still couldn't make their changes compile. Presumably, Lynuxworks could (would good what the changes be unless they compiled?), so this again would indicate a violation of the GPL.
I'm hoping FCS switches back to looking at Red Hat - at least they have a track record. When I found out FCS was using Lynuxworks, my first reation was "Who?"
Here here.
A much more pithy argument than my long-winded drivel. Essentially, don't blame the players, blame the game...
There are two reasons to patent something:
1) to prevent your competitors from using your tech without paying
2) to prevent them from developing the tech you developed first, patenting it, and then trying to leverage that. Take note, Carmack vs. Creative.
In case 2, they *could* cite prior art, but that assumes they've already been sued, are in court, and probably had operations suspended using the algorithm in question. Pain in the ass, and loss of revenue stream. Sure, Carmack could've taken Creative to court, but they chose their timing carefully...just a few days before the release of Doom 3. If he'd fought, it wouldn't have been on shelves, automatically making the figth much more expensive for him than for creative, regardless of who "won". Easier to just settle, even if you are in the right.
Anyway, just because most of us disagree with how the US patent system is set up doesn't mean we can hold every company that patents something as evil. Under our system, sometimes it is defensive. When Google starts suing, that'll be something.
Los Alamos Computers
I'm sure a lot of Slashdotters know the feeling when you get on the tech support line and feel like they treat you like you know nothing, when in fact they're the ones that don't know what they're talking about...
Well, with LAC, they'll treat you as a peer. First off, they request special instructions when you order, if you'd like a RAID setup, what runlevel you'd like to use, what display manager, what desktop environment, etc. They're also cooperative. For example, if I say something is broken, and tell them how I tested it to determine that, they don't run me through some inane troubleshooting sequence on the phone anyway. They picked up on what I was saying right away and shipped out a new part that day. Their response time to emails is very fast as well, about an hour or so in my experience.
Anyway, I'm not getting a kickback or anything, but it is the first time I've had a universally good experience with a computer vendor. I found out about them from a pretty good list of pre-installed Linux vendors over at the Debian site.
I don't understand this attitude at all...since when was the GPL, and the Free Software Foundation for that matter, about paying anyone anything?
If developers using the GPL want to make money off of companies using the code for commercial purposes, then do what Trolltech did with Qt and dual license.
Personally, I don't think the FSF has any place getting into the economics of the business model - their only say should be in the fate of the code. In fact, v2 essentially states that that won't get involved in how you make money when they basically say "Sell it if you want, for however much you want, all we care about is that if you distribute, you have to give away machine readable source as well, licensed under this license."
If you can't even modify the code without PAYING someone - well, let's just say that it wouldn't be FREE software, now would it? Now I'll concede, they're not demanding money, per se. FTFA:
"If you look at the market, Yahoo, eBay, IBM, Amazon, Google have all sunk millions into the GPL infrastructure," Olson said. "Not only are we changing the rules, we are changing them retroactively. With the new way, it lets the customer pay with either their source code or with their wallet."
I think there may be a place for "paying" with the modified source, but let's not get into the "paying with your wallet" part, OK? If you want money, as I said before, just dual license.
Did you even read his post? He said he included version 2, but didn't explicitly state version 2 when he says "Released under GNU GPL". His question was if including version 2 explicit enough, or should he SAY version 2 as well.
To address GP, I'd put it in the text as well, specifically citing version 2. If you have a question, others will too. Best to remove as much ambiguity as possible.
Actually, *you're* missing the point: the point was to explain why Sony would not release specs on UMD.
Considering releasing UMD burners and media would be even more expensive than a flash cart for GBA, the argument that providing a way to write media for it would kill the console doesn't make sense. It happened with GBA, and obviously the GBA has done wonderfully.
I agree...and property development is a specific instance of a general way to make money that is similar: investments. You do work up front with no pay and get continuing profits later on.
Though, I have to admit, as I am in real estate myself, the work by no means ends once the property is developed. Further, as in your example, people are in fact "subscribing" to use (live in) what you have built...they have not paid you a flat fee for indefinite use, as is the case with a software "product". And you, of course, continue to provide a service for the rent they pay; namely, upkeep and maintenance of the building and related property.
But my central point was not that "no other business model exists like this". My main point is that there is a much better way to orchestrate the business model to match the reality of the workflow, benefiting both consumers and developers.
You're not understanding me. The question still remains about whether a licensing agreement can remove the allowance under copyright law to reverse engineer something for interoperability.
If you doubt me, I still refer you to the link above. However, I will add this: the power of the licensing agreement stems from copyright law itself, and while it may seem the two are independent, many (including courts) view them as intertwined. One of the central questions is whether companies can leverage copyright law (through licensing) to remove a priviledge that is protected under copyright law.
Suffice it to say that a lot of intellectual property experts believe that such a licensing agreement is not binding insofar as it denies the licensee certain actions protected under copyright law.
Again, I urge you (if you are interested in this subject matter), to read about the Bnetd case on eff.org and see how this very subject is still being hotly debated.
I read your post twice, and I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but I'll do my best.
It seems you're asserting that as a product becomes more mature (and therefore, less bug ridden) that people will settle for the last release and cancel the subscription.
This is certainly an issue to a degree, but not more so than with the current "add bloated features to sell a new version" model we're looking at with MS Office, for example.
Porting the software is not a bad idea. Take the case of a game, for example. You could continue to develop add-on maps and gameplay types, while also wooing Linux or Mac customers by developing a version for their platforms. There is a hitch in this case, which is "why not just wait until the Linux version is out, and then subscribe, while others had to pay all along?" This is a problem, and I'm not sure how you'd deal with it. Perhaps a minimum subscription time, like 3 or 4 months at a go, for a few dollars a month would eliminate the folks who would pay the few dollars for one month, but only when they needed an upgrade. The goal here is to foster a relationship with customer feedback.
In the case of a piece of business software, especially something that is networked, work will always be ongoing as operating systems progress and new hardware comes out that people want supported. Right now, this type of development is supported by the sales of the old product, but under the subscription system, companies that needed the software would be very interested in paying for security updates and driver updates to support their ever-changing hardware.
And this actually highlights the problem with the current system: we "sell" a copy of the software, and people assume the bug fixes and security updates will be provided free of charge. The time and money that go into that work have to come from somewhere, and the subscription model allows for this. It also gives developers incentive to be truly innovative and responsive to customer needs, because they are constantly working for your continued subscription. This is not the case under our current model.
Well, that's the question, isn't it? You state this like it is obvious, but it isn't obvious. Reverse engineering for interoperability is protected under US copyright law AND the DMCA. In fact, there is at least one court case pending right now to determine this very issue. Read more about it here. Very interesting stuff.
Anyway, given that
- The OSDL had the license
- the employee was NOT employed by OSDL to do the reverse engineering and
- reverse engineering is protected under copyright law
I could see OSDL suing BitMover for breach of contract, which seems backwards, but I really think it is questionable if they gave BitMover any cause to do this, and it is going to cost them dearly to migrate over the entire version history to a new format, especially from one that is proprietary and needs to be reverse engineered before the move can happen.This distopia you speak of where people are subscribing to software is in fact a utopia.
A subscription model to software is in fact how it *should* be. Introversion, the three-man coding team in the UK that codes out of their bedrooms, just released a new game called Darwinia. In their interviews, they talked a bit about their last release, Uplink, and mentioned how odd it was to work 10s of thousands of hours with no pay, and then suddenly stop work, and get tons of money. They pointed out that this was VERY different from just about every other job model, including entertainers like rock bands, who make most of their money touring (making money as they work). Obviously, anyone who is salaried or gets hourly wage also makes the money as they work. Not so with independent developers.
In fact, I would go even further and say the GPL lends itself to a subscription model. While I don't love Transgaming, they understand how it should work. People keep thinking that software is a "product", one that we box up and sell on shelves in a store. It isn't. Software, more than ever, is an ongoing relationship between the users and the developers. The GPL captures this, and so does a subscription model. I don't like MS anymore than the next Slashdotter, but if they are really looking at subscription, that is a good way to go. The developers get paid as they work, which means they always have an incentive to fix bugs, add features, streamline code, etc., because they continue to get paid to do so. It also allows them to release at least some of their code under GPL, because you're not just paying for the code, you're paying for the ongoing work on the code. Anytime you want to stick with where you are (keep the current version), you can. But if you want to get the most up-to-date fixes, pay for the time they spent to do that work, or, do it yourself with the old codebase.
I honestly believe that this is the way software should work. Software should never be sold, but people can still make a living writing it. Basically, developers should sell their time and talent, not the software.
Now, MS might be doing a model more along the lines of "You can only use Office 2017 as long as you pay...if you don't pay, no more Word for you!". This is also a subscription model, and it clearly isn't a good option. But not *all* subcription models are bad, and in fact, as I've said, some are good.
He was referring to the parent post, not his own post.
It's not the notes that are copyrighted...it's her performance of those notes contained on whatever medium, which is going to be a hell of a lot more than 5 bytes.
Besides, it's not the CSS source code that's copyrighted, Jon was talking about the actual numerical code used by the CSS algorithm to decrypt a DVD. The algorithm might be patentable, and the code for the algorithm may be copyrightable, but the code used to unlock a DVD is not.
It is this last code that I think he was referring to, and no one could deem that copyrightable. I've probably got a sequence of bytes in this post that has been used to decrypt a DVD...no one in their right mind would try to call me out on copyright infringement.
The adhesion contract issue was brought up and specifically discussed in the Bnetd finding by the judge. He argued that as long as the user has a choice in clicking "OK" (which he determined a user does with a EULA), then all is fair. Nevermind that the publisher already has your money, and you are in a position of no leverage. It is entirely your burden at that point to return the software and try to get your money back.
What makes all this so interesting is that in the face of amazing precedent that would indicate that EULAs are not enforceable, given that their terms are often not known at the point of sale, as well as the issue of adhesion, courts perist in finding them to be valid and enforceable as long as the user clicks "OK". We would be moving in the right direction by requiring the EULA to be available in the store. I'd like to see some kind of legislation (much like the legislation that called for nutrition information) to appear that requires a simpler breakdown of what EULAs require, so that people would at least KNOW what they are supposedly agreeing to.
Let us hope, then, that the authors of libmimic did not have to click through a EULA prohibiting reverse engineering.