I don't see anything in here that requires two separate companies. AMD can stay a single company and still build chips for other companies to fully utilize their facilities.
But what's the likelihood a chip designer will employ another chip designer to fabricate their chips? I'd be wary about having another designer to fabricate chips my business designed.
Can someone give me some insight into why splitting the company into two is supposed to help AMD?
Building fabrication plants drain money from research. And since the new fabrication business isn't exclusively tied to AMD it will be able to fabricate chips for other chip designers.
Copyrights are rights in the United States. Where do you get the notion they are merely "privileges?"
No, rights are not grant by government yet the USA Constitution specifically grants congress the power to grant copyrights:
United States Constitution Section 8 - Powers of Congress...
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Rights are natural whereas privileges are granted. Here is congress's power to grant copyrights, and patents.
This isn't really about what you *CAN* do, or what you have the legal *RIGHT* to do, it's about how you present yourself to a potential employer, and how even simple things that you might do could be seen or interpreted as.
Yea, if you don't ask for things you show you're a doormat, someone to be walked all over.
My experience has suggested it is well worth it to knowingly sign a contract where part of it might just *HAPPEN* to be illegal for them to enforce than it is to make alterations.
Fortunately, well maybe not, the only tyme I've been in a position to sign an employment contract was when I enlisted in the military, and those can't be changed for each person.
Copyrights are not what grants record companies a monopoly.
Copyrights certainly do confer a monopoly on what's copyrighted. What copyrights don't do is monopolize the creation of new music.
I think what you're conflating is the difference between intellectual property rights and distribution rights.
Where does this idea of yours come from?
Copyrights, however, act as an equalizer... Frankly, and think about this carefully, a recording artist is the source of the ideas. Nobody has a gun to their head demanding they hand over their material to a record company or that they sign an absurd distribution contract that indebts them without guarantee of return.
Nobody no where is guaranteed a return. All they are supposed to have is an opportunity.
Artists can choose to distribute their work freely and allow others to copy it, but they should and do retain the right to make that choice... rather than to have that choice made for them.
Again copyrights are not rights, they are privileges. While copyrights are nice from one perspective, they aren't needed, what what is needed is the enforcement of contracts. And yes I am an artist, a photographer.
I don't see why an artist shouldn't benefit from their work for their entire life to be honest.
So you believe a one hit wonder should never have to work again?
If Ford build a car you like (let's say a Ford GT) and they still have some in stock in a few years, should it be free to you or should you still have to pay for it?
Car cost money to reproduce so the owner should be able to get paid for it, if someone is willing to pay. Once gone, it's gone. Now if someone wants to, and can afford it, they should be able to build their own. To reproduce music the cost is negligible. So while artists should enjoy a monopoly, that monopoly should be limited. Say 7 years at most, not this life plus 50, or 70 years. Copyrights are granted to encourage creation, once you're dead you can't create anymore. Since creation is the reason copyrights are granted, and rights are not granted, copyrights should be short, people should constantly create something new. If they don't then they don't deserve to be paid in perpetuity.
just because it's 10 years old if it didn't sell well on first release (perhaps down to poor marketing or distribution knowledge) they may never have recouped their costs let alone made any money from it
If they didn't get paid then they should have created something people were willing to pay for. All anybody owes another is opportunity. They don't owe anyone an outcome, equal or not. That's what communists and socialists refuse to acknowledge, people are owed opportunities not outcomes.
If you deny an artist this by applying a short-term 'lease' on their rights
Once again, copyrights are not rights, they are privileges. Whereas rights are unalienable, privileges are government granted, and copyrights and patents are granted not unalienable. If you don't want others to have your music then keep it to yourself. Just because you come up with single hit doesn't mean you shouldn't have to work anymore. I'm a photographer, and if I want to continue to make money from photography I need to keep shooting. I'm also a programmer and I should have to keep programming, or sell services, if I want to keep making money from programming.
If you deny an artist this by applying a short-term 'lease' on their rights, it opens the door for other people to commercially exploit their work - such as using the music in an advert which goes on to profit an organisation hugely with no benefit to the recording artist.
The recording artist gets exposure which is a benefit. If others like they can pay for more. People should work to make money.
Why is it that BOTH the RIAA and the 'copyright reformers' seem to want to shaft the musicians?
Why do musicians seem to want to shaft the public? Perhaps you didn't read my post, but if you did then you ignored what I said about the Grateful Dead. And Redhat as well as other businesses make money from open source software, anybody can take that source code to make money themselves, if they can find people willing to pay.
It should be left to us, the musicians to determine the rights to each of our works.
As a photographer I am not owed a life without working for it. I used to write and I don't deserve perpetual income for that either.
iTuens is offering convenience and a brand to people, but even still is making basically zero money.
"The company has never revealed how much money it makes on each song or video it delivers; it claims to run the iTunes store at 'just above break even.' Independent estimates put its profit margin on music sales at 10% to 30% percent."
You're right if you go by Apple but not if you go by the analysts. Then again if you wen by the analysts while investing you're probably hurting now, but you may recover in a few years. According to TFA iTunes has sold more than 5 billion songs since opening. If there's a 10% margin then the profit is more than $500 million.
No lawyer in their right mind would recommend to a client artist that they sign a major-label contract as they are usually offered.
No lawyer in their right mind should recommend to a client that they sign any contract for employment without negotiation, whether the field is music or IT.
You have rights by virtue of being the creator of an original work
Maybe where you come from copyrights, and patents, are rights but they aren't to me. Nor are they in the US. What they are are privileges, a privilege granted by government to encourage creators to create.
The market does decide. No government entity steps in and determines retail pricing or gross margin.
Ah but by granting a monopoly government does interfere in markets. In a free market there is competition. A patent on widgets limits the production of the widget to whomever the patent holder authorizes. As Adam Smith said, copyrights and patents are a necessary evil.
You seem to be under the impression that it's not a "free market" if the producer of a product sets the asking price.
In a free market a producer could set his price but another producer can set her price lower, or offer greater value for the same price.
Where do you get the idea that a free market depends on producers surrendering rights?
Neither copyright nor patents are rights, they are privileges. In order to be granted a copyright or patent by government, and rights are not granted by government, you have to disclose what it is in such a way so the average person in the field can reproduce it. In return for the disclosure you're given a limited monopoly.
They only way the free market would decide the prices is if the artist gave up all rights on their music and anyone who wanted to distribute their music set their own price.
First, there is no right to music, ie copyright despite it's name is not a right, it's a privilege. Next, in a truly free market an artist wouldn't be able to stop someone else from reproducing what they create and selling it themselves. But as the Father of Capitalism Adam Smith said of copyrights and patents they are a necessary evil.
if you dont write your own damn songs, you dont deserve as much as an artist who does.
It's easy to turn that around, if you can't perform your own songs you don't deserve as much as the artist who can perform. Fact is is both writers and performers are needed.
Artists, just like anyone else, shouldn't be forced to bend to your will. Period. They have rights. Why is it their rights are taken as an aside to your desire to be entertained?
However despite it's name it's not a right. Copyrights are privileges not rights. At least here in the US.
Second, without copyright reform, the new association will become as corrupt as the first.
Only if listeners let them. If listeners were to stop buying, and attending concerts, if the new association becomes corrupt then it won't last long. There are other artists who remain uncorrupted or became open. The Grateful Dead allowed concert attendees to record concerts and share those recordings. After angering fans they allowed a nonprofit website to continue to offer downloads of their music. John Perry Barlow, a cofounder of the EFF, wrote songs for the Dead.
The only real solution is copyright reform.
As copyright is in the US it's a big problem. I'm not ready to abolish copyrights yet but I'd like to see the copyright term reduced to several years at most.
onus falls entirely upon them to show that it *IS* legal, which if you are right then the most tthey'll be able to do in court is show that you violated a part of a contract which wasn't even legal in the first place and incriminate themselves.
You'd still have to go to court, even if you don't hire a lawyer yourself. So yes it does cost you.
I'd recommend that you simply not sign contracts at all that you do not fully agree with
Oh, I don't. I refuse to sign any contract I do not understand, which has raised the ire of some people.
Frankly, I'd recommend that you simply not sign contracts at all that you do not fully agree with before I'd recommend striking out clauses that do not sit well with you
And I recommend the opposite, if you don't like something you should state that and ask to have it changed. Despite how people use it that's what capitalism and a free market are about, a voluntary exchange. When you go, well maybe not you but plenty of others do, to a bazaar and see something you want to buy you don't accept the first offer a seller makes. Instead you bargain for a lower price. Employers do the same thing, in the expectation of negotiation at first many will offer a lower pay or stipulations you may not like. You go in with higher demands then bargain.
Corporations are not people at all, and dislike copylefts and share-alikes
True, corporations are not people. I have ranted a number of tymes on/. about corporations myself. However not all corporations dislike copyleft or share-alikes. Redhat is a corporation that lives and breaths on open source. Zope is another one as are others.
GPL is better for everyone but big corporations.
Again I'll cut and paste from a reply to a post above yours:
I hope to start a photography business and because I'm on disability and don't work I won't be able to afford all the commercial software to run a photography business. What I've been planning on doing was search for BSD licensed source code for various tasks then create a shell from which they can all be run. As an example, say I'm editing a photo. Once I finish editing I could then record the photo in a database and generate a bill for the client, all from one interface instead of having to launch each application separately.
Now I don't know how long it would take but I imagine it would be a long tyme. So then I thought that maybe I'd sell the package to other photographers. However because of the effort I put into it I wouldn't want someone who bought it from me to be able to turn around and copy then sell it, or give it away, themselves. I've had some/.ers say I could sell support, sure I could but that would mean I'd be working as support when I want to be a photographer and selling software I wrote would generate a second source of income. In today's economy too many people have to have second jobs to make ends meet, while congress is bailing out large businesses it's not helping average Joes. I'd better stop there.
but it makes the whole project and the community of its users vulnerable to E3 attacks (embrace-extend-extinguish).
If at any tyme I want to I can release all source code into the wild. In which case it's no more vulnerable that GPL code.
And LGPL is better than BSD whenever non-viral properties are desired.
I really don't know anything about the LGPL other than some libraries use it.
Not always. A programmer using the GPL can sell a separate license to those who want to incorporate the code in proprietary software
Ah but that code is still open source. I can modify BSD code then close and distribute it. GPL does not allow source code a programmer modifies, if the source is another's programmer's code, to be closed if it is distributed. The GPL frowns on close source code, the BSD does not.
Of course, the BSD license does represent freedom to other programmers, besides the author, to use that code however they want. And sometimes this is just what is desired.
Cut and paste from a reply I made above:
I hope to start a photography business and because I'm on disability and don't work I won't be able to afford all the commercial software to run a photography business. What I've been planning on doing was search for BSD licensed source code for various tasks then create a shell from which they can all be run. As an example, say I'm editing a photo. Once I finish editing I could then record the photo in a database and generate a bill for the client, all from one interface instead of having to launch each application separately.
Now I don't know how long it would take but I imagine it would be a long tyme. So then I thought that maybe I'd sell the package to other photographers. However because of the effort I put into it I wouldn't want someone who bought it from me to be able to turn around and copy then sell it, or give it away, themselves. I've had some/.ers say I could sell support, sure I could but that would mean I'd be working as support when I want to be a photographer and selling software I wrote would generate a second source of income. In today's economy too many people have to have second jobs to make ends meet, while congress is bailing out large businesses it's not helping average Joes. I'd better stop there.
if you work on a BSD project, a company can come in, buy the main contributors of the code, close it, and prevent you, as one of the original contributors, of enjoying the contribution of that key members, effectively killing the project.
Do you have a reference for this? From what I understand, as I said in the post you replied to, you can take BSD code, modify it, then close the source. But that's only the source you modified, the original code is still open. That's what I've been thinking of doing. I hope to start a photography business and because I'm on disability and don't work I won't be able to afford all the commercial software to run a photography business. What I've been planning on doing was search for BSD licensed source code for various tasks then create a shell from which they can all be run. As an example, say I'm editing a photo. Once I finish editing I could then record the photo in a database and generate a bill for the client, all from one interface instead of having to launch each application separately.
Now I don't know how long it would take but I imagine it would be a long tyme. So then I thought that maybe I'd sell the package to other photographers. However because of the effort I put into it I wouldn't want someone who bought it from me to be able to turn around and copy then sell it, or give it away, themselves. I've had some/.ers say I could sell support, sure I could but that would mean I'd be working as support when I want to be a photographer and selling software I wrote would generate a second source of income. In today's economy too many people have to have second jobs to make ends meet, while congress is bailing out large businesses it's not helping average Joes. I'd better stop there.
This is why we have stuff like the GPL to prevent these very issues. I don't like attempts like this to undermine the F/OSS movement.
BSD is open source. As for "attempts like this to undermine the F/OSS movement", SCO? MS? Dissing one license or in the case of BSD one family of licenses doesn't reflect well on open source itself.
BSD license = developer/programmer freedom
GPL = user freedom
If he was the lead developer in a minor OSS project and the project's site closed down, it is still an open source project... the downside is no one can get the code.
Saying he was the lead developer presupposes there were other developers and those developers should have the code as well. So the old code is still there.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see anything in here that requires two separate companies. AMD can stay a single company and still build chips for other companies to fully utilize their facilities.
But what's the likelihood a chip designer will employ another chip designer to fabricate their chips? I'd be wary about having another designer to fabricate chips my business designed.
Falcon
Can someone give me some insight into why splitting the company into two is supposed to help AMD?
Building fabrication plants drain money from research. And since the new fabrication business isn't exclusively tied to AMD it will be able to fabricate chips for other chip designers.
Falcon
Copyrights are rights in the United States. Where do you get the notion they are merely "privileges?"
No, rights are not grant by government yet the USA Constitution specifically grants congress the power to grant copyrights:
United States Constitution Section 8 - Powers of Congress...
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Rights are natural whereas privileges are granted. Here is congress's power to grant copyrights, and patents.
Falcon
This isn't really about what you *CAN* do, or what you have the legal *RIGHT* to do, it's about how you present yourself to a potential employer, and how even simple things that you might do could be seen or interpreted as.
Yea, if you don't ask for things you show you're a doormat, someone to be walked all over.
My experience has suggested it is well worth it to knowingly sign a contract where part of it might just *HAPPEN* to be illegal for them to enforce than it is to make alterations.
Fortunately, well maybe not, the only tyme I've been in a position to sign an employment contract was when I enlisted in the military, and those can't be changed for each person.
Falcon
Copyrights are not what grants record companies a monopoly.
Copyrights certainly do confer a monopoly on what's copyrighted. What copyrights don't do is monopolize the creation of new music.
I think what you're conflating is the difference between intellectual property rights and distribution rights.
Where does this idea of yours come from?
Copyrights, however, act as an equalizer... Frankly, and think about this carefully, a recording artist is the source of the ideas. Nobody has a gun to their head demanding they hand over their material to a record company or that they sign an absurd distribution contract that indebts them without guarantee of return.
Nobody no where is guaranteed a return. All they are supposed to have is an opportunity.
Artists can choose to distribute their work freely and allow others to copy it, but they should and do retain the right to make that choice... rather than to have that choice made for them.
Again copyrights are not rights, they are privileges. While copyrights are nice from one perspective, they aren't needed, what what is needed is the enforcement of contracts. And yes I am an artist, a photographer.
Falcon
I don't see why an artist shouldn't benefit from their work for their entire life to be honest.
So you believe a one hit wonder should never have to work again?
If Ford build a car you like (let's say a Ford GT) and they still have some in stock in a few years, should it be free to you or should you still have to pay for it?
Car cost money to reproduce so the owner should be able to get paid for it, if someone is willing to pay. Once gone, it's gone. Now if someone wants to, and can afford it, they should be able to build their own. To reproduce music the cost is negligible. So while artists should enjoy a monopoly, that monopoly should be limited. Say 7 years at most, not this life plus 50, or 70 years. Copyrights are granted to encourage creation, once you're dead you can't create anymore. Since creation is the reason copyrights are granted, and rights are not granted, copyrights should be short, people should constantly create something new. If they don't then they don't deserve to be paid in perpetuity.
just because it's 10 years old if it didn't sell well on first release (perhaps down to poor marketing or distribution knowledge) they may never have recouped their costs let alone made any money from it
If they didn't get paid then they should have created something people were willing to pay for. All anybody owes another is opportunity. They don't owe anyone an outcome, equal or not. That's what communists and socialists refuse to acknowledge, people are owed opportunities not outcomes.
If you deny an artist this by applying a short-term 'lease' on their rights
Once again, copyrights are not rights, they are privileges. Whereas rights are unalienable, privileges are government granted, and copyrights and patents are granted not unalienable. If you don't want others to have your music then keep it to yourself. Just because you come up with single hit doesn't mean you shouldn't have to work anymore. I'm a photographer, and if I want to continue to make money from photography I need to keep shooting. I'm also a programmer and I should have to keep programming, or sell services, if I want to keep making money from programming.
If you deny an artist this by applying a short-term 'lease' on their rights, it opens the door for other people to commercially exploit their work - such as using the music in an advert which goes on to profit an organisation hugely with no benefit to the recording artist.
The recording artist gets exposure which is a benefit. If others like they can pay for more. People should work to make money.
Why is it that BOTH the RIAA and the 'copyright reformers' seem to want to shaft the musicians?
Why do musicians seem to want to shaft the public? Perhaps you didn't read my post, but if you did then you ignored what I said about the Grateful Dead. And Redhat as well as other businesses make money from open source software, anybody can take that source code to make money themselves, if they can find people willing to pay.
It should be left to us, the musicians to determine the rights to each of our works.
As a photographer I am not owed a life without working for it. I used to write and I don't deserve perpetual income for that either.
Falcon
Sure you can, that's what happens with FOOS.
iTuens is offering convenience and a brand to people, but even still is making basically zero money.
"The company has never revealed how much money it makes on each song or video it delivers; it claims to run the iTunes store at 'just above break even.' Independent estimates put its profit margin on music sales at 10% to 30% percent."
You're right if you go by Apple but not if you go by the analysts. Then again if you wen by the analysts while investing you're probably hurting now, but you may recover in a few years. According to TFA iTunes has sold more than 5 billion songs since opening. If there's a 10% margin then the profit is more than $500 million.
Falcon
No lawyer in their right mind would recommend to a client artist that they sign a major-label contract as they are usually offered.
No lawyer in their right mind should recommend to a client that they sign any contract for employment without negotiation, whether the field is music or IT.
Falcon
You have rights by virtue of being the creator of an original work
Maybe where you come from copyrights, and patents, are rights but they aren't to me. Nor are they in the US. What they are are privileges, a privilege granted by government to encourage creators to create.
Falcon
The market does decide. No government entity steps in and determines retail pricing or gross margin.
Ah but by granting a monopoly government does interfere in markets. In a free market there is competition. A patent on widgets limits the production of the widget to whomever the patent holder authorizes. As Adam Smith said, copyrights and patents are a necessary evil.
Falcon
You seem to be under the impression that it's not a "free market" if the producer of a product sets the asking price.
In a free market a producer could set his price but another producer can set her price lower, or offer greater value for the same price.
Where do you get the idea that a free market depends on producers surrendering rights?
Neither copyright nor patents are rights, they are privileges. In order to be granted a copyright or patent by government, and rights are not granted by government, you have to disclose what it is in such a way so the average person in the field can reproduce it. In return for the disclosure you're given a limited monopoly.
Falcon
They only way the free market would decide the prices is if the artist gave up all rights on their music and anyone who wanted to distribute their music set their own price.
First, there is no right to music, ie copyright despite it's name is not a right, it's a privilege. Next, in a truly free market an artist wouldn't be able to stop someone else from reproducing what they create and selling it themselves. But as the Father of Capitalism Adam Smith said of copyrights and patents they are a necessary evil.
Falcon
if you dont write your own damn songs, you dont deserve as much as an artist who does.
It's easy to turn that around, if you can't perform your own songs you don't deserve as much as the artist who can perform. Fact is is both writers and performers are needed.
Falcon
Artists, just like anyone else, shouldn't be forced to bend to your will. Period. They have rights. Why is it their rights are taken as an aside to your desire to be entertained?
However despite it's name it's not a right. Copyrights are privileges not rights. At least here in the US.
Falcon
the artists don't own the radiowaves and the music video networks like the RIAA does
I'm not sure how it is where you are but in the US the people own the airwaves. The FCC just licenses them.
Falcon
Second, without copyright reform, the new association will become as corrupt as the first.
Only if listeners let them. If listeners were to stop buying, and attending concerts, if the new association becomes corrupt then it won't last long. There are other artists who remain uncorrupted or became open. The Grateful Dead allowed concert attendees to record concerts and share those recordings. After angering fans they allowed a nonprofit website to continue to offer downloads of their music. John Perry Barlow, a cofounder of the EFF, wrote songs for the Dead.
The only real solution is copyright reform.
As copyright is in the US it's a big problem. I'm not ready to abolish copyrights yet but I'd like to see the copyright term reduced to several years at most.
Falcon
onus falls entirely upon them to show that it *IS* legal, which if you are right then the most tthey'll be able to do in court is show that you violated a part of a contract which wasn't even legal in the first place and incriminate themselves.
You'd still have to go to court, even if you don't hire a lawyer yourself. So yes it does cost you.
I'd recommend that you simply not sign contracts at all that you do not fully agree with
Oh, I don't. I refuse to sign any contract I do not understand, which has raised the ire of some people.
Frankly, I'd recommend that you simply not sign contracts at all that you do not fully agree with before I'd recommend striking out clauses that do not sit well with you
And I recommend the opposite, if you don't like something you should state that and ask to have it changed. Despite how people use it that's what capitalism and a free market are about, a voluntary exchange. When you go, well maybe not you but plenty of others do, to a bazaar and see something you want to buy you don't accept the first offer a seller makes. Instead you bargain for a lower price. Employers do the same thing, in the expectation of negotiation at first many will offer a lower pay or stipulations you may not like. You go in with higher demands then bargain.
Falcon
they want him to sign a non-competition clause. If he were to sign it he couldn't do the same sort of work after he leaves the employer.
I think you missed off the IANAL part..
Maybe you can explain it, I don't see what one has to do with the other.
Actually, I know you did
Are you another /. mindreader?
Falcon
Programmers and users are the same people.
They may be the same but not necessarily.
Corporations are not people at all, and dislike copylefts and share-alikes
True, corporations are not people. I have ranted a number of tymes on /. about corporations myself. However not all corporations dislike copyleft or share-alikes. Redhat is a corporation that lives and breaths on open source. Zope is another one as are others.
GPL is better for everyone but big corporations.
Again I'll cut and paste from a reply to a post above yours:
I hope to start a photography business and because I'm on disability and don't work I won't be able to afford all the commercial software to run a photography business. What I've been planning on doing was search for BSD licensed source code for various tasks then create a shell from which they can all be run. As an example, say I'm editing a photo. Once I finish editing I could then record the photo in a database and generate a bill for the client, all from one interface instead of having to launch each application separately.
Now I don't know how long it would take but I imagine it would be a long tyme. So then I thought that maybe I'd sell the package to other photographers. However because of the effort I put into it I wouldn't want someone who bought it from me to be able to turn around and copy then sell it, or give it away, themselves. I've had some /.ers say I could sell support, sure I could but that would mean I'd be working as support when I want to be a photographer and selling software I wrote would generate a second source of income. In today's economy too many people have to have second jobs to make ends meet, while congress is bailing out large businesses it's not helping average Joes. I'd better stop there.
but it makes the whole project and the community of its users vulnerable to E3 attacks (embrace-extend-extinguish).
If at any tyme I want to I can release all source code into the wild. In which case it's no more vulnerable that GPL code.
And LGPL is better than BSD whenever non-viral properties are desired.
I really don't know anything about the LGPL other than some libraries use it.
Falcon
BSD = programmer freedom
Not always. A programmer using the GPL can sell a separate license to those who want to incorporate the code in proprietary software
Ah but that code is still open source. I can modify BSD code then close and distribute it. GPL does not allow source code a programmer modifies, if the source is another's programmer's code, to be closed if it is distributed. The GPL frowns on close source code, the BSD does not.
Of course, the BSD license does represent freedom to other programmers, besides the author, to use that code however they want. And sometimes this is just what is desired.
Cut and paste from a reply I made above:
I hope to start a photography business and because I'm on disability and don't work I won't be able to afford all the commercial software to run a photography business. What I've been planning on doing was search for BSD licensed source code for various tasks then create a shell from which they can all be run. As an example, say I'm editing a photo. Once I finish editing I could then record the photo in a database and generate a bill for the client, all from one interface instead of having to launch each application separately.
Now I don't know how long it would take but I imagine it would be a long tyme. So then I thought that maybe I'd sell the package to other photographers. However because of the effort I put into it I wouldn't want someone who bought it from me to be able to turn around and copy then sell it, or give it away, themselves. I've had some /.ers say I could sell support, sure I could but that would mean I'd be working as support when I want to be a photographer and selling software I wrote would generate a second source of income. In today's economy too many people have to have second jobs to make ends meet, while congress is bailing out large businesses it's not helping average Joes. I'd better stop there.
Falcon
Surely you are telling programmers what they can and can not do with *your* code.
Just as they can with their code. The programmers' whose code I used didn't have to open their source, they could have closed it just as I might.
Falcon
if you work on a BSD project, a company can come in, buy the main contributors of the code, close it, and prevent you, as one of the original contributors, of enjoying the contribution of that key members, effectively killing the project.
Do you have a reference for this? From what I understand, as I said in the post you replied to, you can take BSD code, modify it, then close the source. But that's only the source you modified, the original code is still open. That's what I've been thinking of doing. I hope to start a photography business and because I'm on disability and don't work I won't be able to afford all the commercial software to run a photography business. What I've been planning on doing was search for BSD licensed source code for various tasks then create a shell from which they can all be run. As an example, say I'm editing a photo. Once I finish editing I could then record the photo in a database and generate a bill for the client, all from one interface instead of having to launch each application separately.
Now I don't know how long it would take but I imagine it would be a long tyme. So then I thought that maybe I'd sell the package to other photographers. However because of the effort I put into it I wouldn't want someone who bought it from me to be able to turn around and copy then sell it, or give it away, themselves. I've had some /.ers say I could sell support, sure I could but that would mean I'd be working as support when I want to be a photographer and selling software I wrote would generate a second source of income. In today's economy too many people have to have second jobs to make ends meet, while congress is bailing out large businesses it's not helping average Joes. I'd better stop there.
Falcon
The folks who don't like the GPL can be described succintly as follows: "The assholes who want to take without giving back."
Nope, it goes like this:
BSD licenses = developer/programmer freedom
GPL = user freedom
Falcon
This is why we have stuff like the GPL to prevent these very issues. I don't like attempts like this to undermine the F/OSS movement.
BSD is open source. As for "attempts like this to undermine the F/OSS movement", SCO? MS? Dissing one license or in the case of BSD one family of licenses doesn't reflect well on open source itself.
BSD license = developer/programmer freedom
GPL = user freedom
Falcon
If he was the lead developer in a minor OSS project and the project's site closed down, it is still an open source project... the downside is no one can get the code.
Saying he was the lead developer presupposes there were other developers and those developers should have the code as well. So the old code is still there.
Falcon