I'll choose to look on the bright side. This levy will make it harder for the Canadian version of the RIAA to convince the lawmakers that filesharing of copyrighted music should be illegal. It's somewhere between a grey area and perfectly legal right now.
Indeed. And if one really wants to have other additional computers in control of the music, they can just use vnc or some similar app to control the music server.
Many times a closed source app (especially one that is much more popular on Windows) will have poor support on Linux because not enough testing is done. Nor do they care to do more testing. There's not enough money in it for them. His case was a classic example. A basic function, one that everyone uses in Mathematica all the time, was not working in Linux.
So yes, speaking from experience I can say that, in general, an OSS program does have better support on Linux than a closed source app does. If Mathematica were open source, he wouldn't have had that problem in the first place. Sure if he were the first person to come across a bug, he would not have been able to quickly fix it, but that's not the point. The point is the bug would have been found and fixed a long time ago before he even came across it.
And it's not my fault that you didn't comprehend his problem with the liscensing. It seemed pretty clear to me.
Surely it'll be easier to undo whatever we do to this planet -- a planet with resources we've harnessed, that has equipment, that we know has supported life -- than it would be to make another planet survivable.
I agree with that, but hopefully, if and when we populate another planet, it won't be because we screwed this one up, it'll because we filled this one up. It would also increase our probability for survival because we won't all be in one place. So we won't all die when the Vogons come.
But I have a question about the retroactive part. It seems that not only will stations have to pay more in the future, but they have to pay more for the past year or so. How is that legal? Also, does anyone know how it would be enforced? If a station just shuts down and doesn't pay for the past year, then what?
You got modded troll because you weren't just asking for clarity. You were asking a rhetorical question meant to imply that an OSS version would be no better. Even though the answers to your question were clearly obvious in the OP.
1.The liscensing. Everyone got that. And that alone is a big enough reason to prefer an OSS version seeing as how he spent more time getting it sorted than doing the actual calculation
2.The performance on Linux. If it were OSS, he wouldn't have had to fix the problems himself, the support for it on Linux would have already been better.
We made it on a second tier list along with the likes of:
Belarus, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Jamaica,
South Korea, Kuwait, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.
Well I'll have none of this second best business. Fire up the torrents! We'll show those Peruvians who the real pirates are!
Well, since every comment here is about that "20 years off" quote, I'll add mine.
That twenty years (here and decades ago) assumes that governments won't pull funding for fusion research. But they did, and will again. ITER could have been built years ago. It wasn't a lack technology holding it back, it was a lack of money. So don't blame the scientists who give those 20 year estimates, blame your governments.
Oh bullshit. If you are a company who wants "commercial" level software you don't use an OSs latest release that literally just came out, and you don't use a graphical interface that is known to be buggy just so your users can have eye-candy. Which is why you won't catch major companies using Ubuntu 7.04+Beryl or Vista right now.
There's nothing unfinished about Debian stable or RHEL.
The problem with comparing a lot of OSS with commercial software is that you get to see and play with the OSS before it's done. It's a feature, not a bug, to be able to have the code before the developers are satisfied with it. Instead of complaining about them "shipping" bad code, you could just not use beta software. The developers of Beryl will be the first to tell you that it's not stable. Would it make you feel better if they hid it from you until it's "done"?
Hey dumb ass, you should be able to tell the difference between a person who is trying to be offensive to a whole culture and someone who isn't. Furthermore, no one is limiting your freedom. No one limited that dick who just got fired either. You have the freedom to say whatever the fuck you want and so can he. But that doesn't mean that people can't complain about it or that his bosses can't fire him if they think his actions are going to bring ratings down or lose them ad revenue.
In addition, just because we have the right to say whatever the fuck we want and be offensive doesn't mean we should. That's called being an asshole, asshole.
Those 3 in Europe are in coutries which speak different languages. How would you like your only option to be the one in Madrid? Think you'd get anything out of it?
Exactly. In addition, if one reads EMI's announcement about them selling DRM-free music, it's clear that it's neither AAC nor iTunes exclusive. Other music stores will be selling EMI's songs in mp3 format soon, and nothing will have changed with respect to the popularity of mp3 vs AAC.
Yeah, good point. It's funny how some people just can't seem to get that the internet changes everything. With radio and television it was somewhat reasonable for the government to insist that a portion be Canadian content. There used to be a limited amount of stuff that could be broadcast across the airwaves. And many people, including myself, wanted to hear/see local (as in Canadian) artists.
But now with the internet it doesn't cost anybody anything extra to get content from everywhere. Having access to terabytes of Japanese anime and American country music doesn't at all limit my access to Canadian artists.
I said a hip hop the hippie the hippie
to the hip hip hop, a you dont stop
the rock it to the bang bang boogie say up jumped the boogie
to the rhythm of the boogie, the beat
If there was some kind of so-called "music" before this came along, I don't want to know about it:)
The DRM free music will not just be for iTunes, so they won't just be in AAC. So all players benefit, just not from iTunes which will probably still sell in AAC.
In the case of DRM the third party is the friend (an actual person or just another device) whom I actually want to let "eavesdrop" and get the information. But the music industry is making sure no third party can "steal" from us, whether we like it or not.
Well, if you as a code author don't have a problem with it, then it's not bad to you.
But I do think it goes against the spirit of the GPL. When a coder puts something under the GPL what they are usually meaning to say is "everyone who uses this app (and it's derivatives) should get the code too if they want it". Denying users the code to the web app that you are making them pay to use is taking away the freedom that the original author intended for them, IMO. If you modify some GPL'd code and let your friends come over to use it, I doubt anyone would raise a fuss. But what if you modify some code and charge strangers to come over and use it? Yeah, if you're not the original author, I think you should have to show the code.
An AC answered my original question. Pasting it here for those that don't read ACs. Thanks AC.
The web application issue is still being addressed, but with a different strategy. Section 13 in the latest draft makes reference to version 2 of the Affero GPL. This isn't out yet; we're planning on publicly drafting it as we have with all our other licenses, and we're hoping to announce more concrete plans soon. The Affero GPL will address web applications as it always has, and the new clause allows for some compatibility between GPL and the Affero GPL, once they're both released.
I only skimmed the draft, but it seems in this whole Novel-Microsoft thing, the part about web-apps has been lost. There was talk about getting this base covered.
Right now if I write some code and GPL it someone can take that code, use it in the regular ways that is permitted by the GPL, but then instead of distributing it, they turn it into a web-app and charge people to use the code. Since they are not technically distributing the binaries, they don't have to release the code, whether they've modified it or not.
1st ad: Linux has been a viable alternative for quite some time. Just because you don't hear about it all the time doesn't mean it's new or that your company shouldn't use it.
2nd ad: Linux changes to suit the times. There's no waiting around for years for a new version.
3rd ad: Linux can do the things that Mac and Windows can. And can do it on any hardware.
I also like how it's pointing out that it doesn't matter what type of computer you have. You can run Linux now. I guess many people are used to the idea of having to buy a new computer to change operating system.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll choose to look on the bright side. This levy will make it harder for the Canadian version of the RIAA to convince the lawmakers that filesharing of copyrighted music should be illegal. It's somewhere between a grey area and perfectly legal right now.
He was the only candidate who doesn't support, or even have a clear stance on free software.
Not that that's the most important quality in a president, but it would have been nice.
Indeed. And if one really wants to have other additional computers in control of the music, they can just use vnc or some similar app to control the music server.
Sweet, sweet cans.
Many times a closed source app (especially one that is much more popular on Windows) will have poor support on Linux because not enough testing is done. Nor do they care to do more testing. There's not enough money in it for them. His case was a classic example. A basic function, one that everyone uses in Mathematica all the time, was not working in Linux.
So yes, speaking from experience I can say that, in general, an OSS program does have better support on Linux than a closed source app does. If Mathematica were open source, he wouldn't have had that problem in the first place. Sure if he were the first person to come across a bug, he would not have been able to quickly fix it, but that's not the point. The point is the bug would have been found and fixed a long time ago before he even came across it.
And it's not my fault that you didn't comprehend his problem with the liscensing. It seemed pretty clear to me.
Surely it'll be easier to undo whatever we do to this planet -- a planet with resources we've harnessed, that has equipment, that we know has supported life -- than it would be to make another planet survivable.
I agree with that, but hopefully, if and when we populate another planet, it won't be because we screwed this one up, it'll because we filled this one up. It would also increase our probability for survival because we won't all be in one place. So we won't all die when the Vogons come.
This whole thing is disgusting.
But I have a question about the retroactive part. It seems that not only will stations have to pay more in the future, but they have to pay more for the past year or so. How is that legal? Also, does anyone know how it would be enforced? If a station just shuts down and doesn't pay for the past year, then what?
You got modded troll because you weren't just asking for clarity. You were asking a rhetorical question meant to imply that an OSS version would be no better. Even though the answers to your question were clearly obvious in the OP.
1.The liscensing. Everyone got that. And that alone is a big enough reason to prefer an OSS version seeing as how he spent more time getting it sorted than doing the actual calculation
2.The performance on Linux. If it were OSS, he wouldn't have had to fix the problems himself, the support for it on Linux would have already been better.
We made it on a second tier list along with the likes of:
Belarus, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Jamaica, South Korea, Kuwait, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.
Well I'll have none of this second best business. Fire up the torrents! We'll show those Peruvians who the real pirates are!
Well, since every comment here is about that "20 years off" quote, I'll add mine.
That twenty years (here and decades ago) assumes that governments won't pull funding for fusion research. But they did, and will again. ITER could have been built years ago. It wasn't a lack technology holding it back, it was a lack of money. So don't blame the scientists who give those 20 year estimates, blame your governments.
Oh bullshit. If you are a company who wants "commercial" level software you don't use an OSs latest release that literally just came out, and you don't use a graphical interface that is known to be buggy just so your users can have eye-candy. Which is why you won't catch major companies using Ubuntu 7.04+Beryl or Vista right now. There's nothing unfinished about Debian stable or RHEL.
The problem with comparing a lot of OSS with commercial software is that you get to see and play with the OSS before it's done. It's a feature, not a bug, to be able to have the code before the developers are satisfied with it. Instead of complaining about them "shipping" bad code, you could just not use beta software. The developers of Beryl will be the first to tell you that it's not stable. Would it make you feel better if they hid it from you until it's "done"?
LFS
Because they don't have blogs. Yet.
Hey dumb ass, you should be able to tell the difference between a person who is trying to be offensive to a whole culture and someone who isn't. Furthermore, no one is limiting your freedom. No one limited that dick who just got fired either. You have the freedom to say whatever the fuck you want and so can he. But that doesn't mean that people can't complain about it or that his bosses can't fire him if they think his actions are going to bring ratings down or lose them ad revenue.
In addition, just because we have the right to say whatever the fuck we want and be offensive doesn't mean we should. That's called being an asshole, asshole.
Those 3 in Europe are in coutries which speak different languages. How would you like your only option to be the one in Madrid? Think you'd get anything out of it?
Exactly. In addition, if one reads EMI's announcement about them selling DRM-free music, it's clear that it's neither AAC nor iTunes exclusive. Other music stores will be selling EMI's songs in mp3 format soon, and nothing will have changed with respect to the popularity of mp3 vs AAC.
Here are assorted images of Thailand's king. Here's Thailand's government website. (english)
Let's show them what we and the Gimp think of them throwing people in prison for 10 years for vandalism.
Yeah, good point. It's funny how some people just can't seem to get that the internet changes everything. With radio and television it was somewhat reasonable for the government to insist that a portion be Canadian content. There used to be a limited amount of stuff that could be broadcast across the airwaves. And many people, including myself, wanted to hear/see local (as in Canadian) artists.
But now with the internet it doesn't cost anybody anything extra to get content from everywhere. Having access to terabytes of Japanese anime and American country music doesn't at all limit my access to Canadian artists.
I said a hip hop the hippie the hippie
to the hip hip hop, a you dont stop
the rock it to the bang bang boogie say up jumped the boogie
to the rhythm of the boogie, the beat
If there was some kind of so-called "music" before this came along, I don't want to know about it:)
The DRM free music will not just be for iTunes, so they won't just be in AAC. So all players benefit, just not from iTunes which will probably still sell in AAC.
Read about it here:
EMI's press release
I wonder if indie labels will also be able to sell non-DRM'd tracks on iTunes now.
In the case of DRM the third party is the friend (an actual person or just another device) whom I actually want to let "eavesdrop" and get the information. But the music industry is making sure no third party can "steal" from us, whether we like it or not.
Well, if you as a code author don't have a problem with it, then it's not bad to you.
But I do think it goes against the spirit of the GPL. When a coder puts something under the GPL what they are usually meaning to say is "everyone who uses this app (and it's derivatives) should get the code too if they want it". Denying users the code to the web app that you are making them pay to use is taking away the freedom that the original author intended for them, IMO. If you modify some GPL'd code and let your friends come over to use it, I doubt anyone would raise a fuss. But what if you modify some code and charge strangers to come over and use it? Yeah, if you're not the original author, I think you should have to show the code.
An AC answered my original question. Pasting it here for those that don't read ACs. Thanks AC.
The web application issue is still being addressed, but with a different strategy. Section 13 in the latest draft makes reference to version 2 of the Affero GPL. This isn't out yet; we're planning on publicly drafting it as we have with all our other licenses, and we're hoping to announce more concrete plans soon. The Affero GPL will address web applications as it always has, and the new clause allows for some compatibility between GPL and the Affero GPL, once they're both released.
Hope this helps,
-- Brett Smith, FSF Licensing Compliance Engineer
I only skimmed the draft, but it seems in this whole Novel-Microsoft thing, the part about web-apps has been lost. There was talk about getting this base covered.
Right now if I write some code and GPL it someone can take that code, use it in the regular ways that is permitted by the GPL, but then instead of distributing it, they turn it into a web-app and charge people to use the code. Since they are not technically distributing the binaries, they don't have to release the code, whether they've modified it or not.
1st ad: Linux has been a viable alternative for quite some time. Just because you don't hear about it all the time doesn't mean it's new or that your company shouldn't use it.
2nd ad: Linux changes to suit the times. There's no waiting around for years for a new version.
3rd ad: Linux can do the things that Mac and Windows can. And can do it on any hardware.
I also like how it's pointing out that it doesn't matter what type of computer you have. You can run Linux now. I guess many people are used to the idea of having to buy a new computer to change operating system.