No. On February 2, 1998, we created a brand called "Open Source". It no more attempts to redefine "Open" than the brand "The Prudential" attempts to redefine "The".
Whether they have a legal right to enforce it depends on trademark law, but I don't think it's right for companies to use false or misleading advertising, by trying to pretend a term applies to their software, when it doesn't.
And who has the authority over everyone else to decide what is the definition of "open source"?
Except that isn't alone the definition - as I understand it, this was a term introduced by the OSI, and not one which preexisted.
Ah, but the OSI did not introduce the term "open source". The OSI was founded in 1998, however two years before, in 1996, Caldera used the term "open source". See Caldera Announces Open-Source Code Model for DOS.
You can interpret the term however you wish, but that doesn't change its definition. Bruce Perens coined the phrase "Open Source Software" as a business-friendly synonym for the phrase "Free Software". The Open Source Definition, also written by Bruce Perens, is the definition of the phrase he coined. What you're talking about isn't Open Source by the very definition of the term.
Oh, can you provide a link to back this up, and when it was?
Remember, "Open Source Software" is a synonym for "Free Software". If it isn't Free, it isn't Open Source.
What makes your definition the official definition any more than anyone else's? If you try to sue someone who's inappropriately using the term, a judge is going to ask you the exact same thing. You're going to need a better answer than "we got there first".
The thing is is the OSI wasn't first to use "open source".
Aunt Bea didn't have to worry about someone else selling pies with her name in Mayberry, but if she moved to Metropolis, someone somewhere would start selling "Aunt Bea's Pies", and if she didn't protect her name, their preservative laden crap would start being equated with her pies. Which just ain't right. Hence, what OSI is doing.
But what gives the OSI the right to be the only entity to decide what the definition of "open source" is? BSD existed way before the OSI did.
People expect "Open Source" software to have all the rights required by the Open Source Definition.
You might but not everyone uses OSI's definition of open source. I certainly don't, though I've been using the term "open source" for years it's only been recently I learned the OSI came up with their own definition of it. For instance BSD is an open source license however it does not meet the OSI's definition.
the OSI is helping the IP owners (and they DO retain ownership) pursue legal action based on the license violations. Why all the hate?
What you say is true if you use someone else's code but if you entirely use your own code it's different. Writing all the code myself, if I creats a graphics program to revival Photoshop and release the source code but my license bars anyone one else from modifiying it, it is still open source. The OSI however is saying that unless your program license is the same as their's it not open source. The BSD license allows this I believe so it's not open source according to the OSI. If I'm right the BSD license even allows me to take someone else's BSD source code, modify it, then close the code as long as I include or credit all of the previous contributors to the code.
I'm pretty sure you can get a trademark/copywhatsoever (IANAL) on "OSI Approved OSS", promote that as what "true/standardized" Open Source software is, and then you can have the legal ground to go after deceitful entities.
They coud do this but someone else could also go and say they have the "true/standardized" Open Source. As such it would not mean much. Now if the IEEE were to standardize what opensource meant then it could have some weight.
I have a decently large DVD collection. Shortly before subscribing to netflix, I considered picking up a DVD burner and copying all of my Blockbuster rentals (it's the only rental shop near me). Shortly after subscribing, I found that I was no longer interested in owning DVDs. Why? I can have it tomorrow if I want to see it again.
Yeah, rent it. I prefer to own not rent. I too have a lot of movies, both on dvd and tape. I pay for a movie once and it's mine no matter how many tymes I watch it, and I've watched a number of movies a number of tymes. For instance "Hellfighters" I watch maybe every other month, first the tape I got of it and now the dvd. Another movie I like to watch is "To Catch A Thief" which I've watched maybe half a dozen tymes in the past year.
The original owners were smart enough to make a backup, then store the original. When the backup wore out, they'd pull the original and make another backup. That way the media lived on for far longer than it would have if the original media had been used.
Years ago that's what I used to do. The first tyme I played a brand new vinyl LP, record, on my turntable I'd record it on my reel-to-reel tape deck. I'd then put the record away for safe keeping and play the tape. When the tape eventually wore down I still had the record to make another tape of.
This could be the step that pushes consumers too far and backfires on them. If it isn't, well, they'll just keep tightening their grip until they do push the public too far, then the backlash will not only shock them
Unfortunately I doubt this will make consumers push back. If consumers didn't push back when copyrights were extended pass the creator's life and or DMCA this won't do it either.
There should be more than enough immigrants available to satisfy food demand. The management company, Soylent, Inc., always has plenty of people on hand for harvesting and processing.
The problem I see with this is that they've actually done studies for greenhouses and hydroponics and found the energy requirements higher for the 'local grow' solution than shipping from south america to the USA.
"The Economist" magazine had an article on this which said in some circumstances flying a crop half way around the world is more energy efficient than a local farmer growing it.
Falcon
Re:Solving a problem that doesn't exist
on
Vertical Farming
·
· Score: 1
Anyway, they're solving a problem that doesn't really exist. We're growing far, far more food now than we actually eat if you look at corn and soybean production.
You're right it's not a problem now, but when peak oil comes around it will be. Petroleum products aren't just used to transport food, but to grow it as well. The farm trackers use it. Fertilizers are made from natural gas, and herbicides and pesticides are also made from petrochemicals.
If cows were eating grass again and farmers were growing other crops besides corn and soybeans again, we would get a lot more people-food from the farmland we have.
Agreed bigtime! The vast majority of crops like corn are grown to feed to cows and other animals which are then butchered for human consumption. If eating meat were reduced then less land would be needed for agriculture. I'm a meat eater, and not vegetarian or vegan, heck I love to hunt. But I do support cutting down on how much meat people eat.
Falcon
Re:Emphasis on the light, please.
on
Vertical Farming
·
· Score: 1
You could use fiber optics to collect sunlight from all over the building's surface and redistribute it evenly to the plants inside....as a matter of fact, that would be a great idea for offices and residences on the insides of buildings, too... I wonder if anyone's working on implementing it.
There are things like Solar light tubes that transmit light to the interiors of buildings. These are getting to be popular in energy self-sefficient residential construction.
There's a problem with tilling though. The act of tilling soil breaks down the soil into smaller and smaller particles and these particles get washed away easier as well as don't hold as much moisture. Eventually it becomes dust.
Human excrement is VERY dangerous and VERY unhealthy to use as a fertilizer for human food (cholera, typhoid, hep A, etc...).
It is only if not properly and thoroughly composted. Thoroughly composting manure, humanure or not, will make a compost pile hot enough to distroy most any pathogens. See Temperature.
Most natural environments can only produce crops during a single season.
It really depends on what the crop is. I used to live in Florida and I love to garden. At this tyme of the year I'd be readying to plant a second crop if I hadn't already, when I lived there. For some things I was able to get three plantings in a year.
organic farming cannot supply enough food to feed the world
Oh but organic farming can feed the world, however it either requires the elimination of these mega cities like Mexico City, Rio, and the ones sprouting up like mushrooms in China, with a population of millions, or it requires city farms.
why do wind farms consist of all those huge windmills? wouldn't 100 times as many smaller windmills generate a similar amount of power?
Generally speaking large wind gennies, er mills, have lower rpms so there's less vibrations and it's thought they are less of a threat to wildlife. However because of the large blades the speed of the tips of the blades are actually faster. Some studies have shown the faster blade tips create the elusion of a solid object, however others have shown they create a strobe effect like strobe lights.
Yeah, what a bitch that English still keeps a few irregular plurals. Never mind that French also has irregular plurals. Never mind that French has irregular *adjectives*. Never mind that French verbs have more distinct forms, so there's more to remember about a verb irregularity. Never mind that French orthography itself is pretty messed up (last four consonants are optional!).
And depending on what gender the subject is, verbs are conjegated differently. If I recall right there are 6 different conjegations forget the particples and tenses. Je ne parle pas Francious, je suis oblage moi Francious.
Among European languages, English is about alone in:
-only having declension for pronouns
-no noun gender
-how few forms there are for each verb
In the sense that English doesn't have genders with verbs, it's easier. However it has a lot of verbs that conjegate irregularly, or are pronounced differently. Such as "read", it is spelled the same for future, past, and present tenses and while it's pronounced the same for future and present tenses the prenounciation is different for the past tense. However some words are borrowed from other languages.
Slashdot Mirror
No. On February 2, 1998, we created a brand called "Open Source". It no more attempts to redefine "Open" than the brand "The Prudential" attempts to redefine "The" .
Ah but two years before, in 1996, Caldera used "open source": Caldera Announces Open-Source Code Model for DOS.
FalconWhether they have a legal right to enforce it depends on trademark law, but I don't think it's right for companies to use false or misleading advertising, by trying to pretend a term applies to their software, when it doesn't.
And who has the authority over everyone else to decide what is the definition of "open source"?
Falconopen source = you can see the source
Except that isn't alone the definition - as I understand it, this was a term introduced by the OSI, and not one which preexisted.
Ah, but the OSI did not introduce the term "open source". The OSI was founded in 1998, however two years before, in 1996, Caldera used the term "open source". See Caldera Announces Open-Source Code Model for DOS.
FalconWikipedia says OpenDOS is proprietary, and it only had disclosed source until they took it back link [wikipedia.org]
Try this: Open BSD or any of the other BSDs. BSD existed before the OSI did.
FalconYou can interpret the term however you wish, but that doesn't change its definition. Bruce Perens coined the phrase "Open Source Software" as a business-friendly synonym for the phrase "Free Software". The Open Source Definition, also written by Bruce Perens, is the definition of the phrase he coined. What you're talking about isn't Open Source by the very definition of the term.
Oh, can you provide a link to back this up, and when it was?
Remember, "Open Source Software" is a synonym for "Free Software". If it isn't Free, it isn't Open Source.
It may be to you but it's not to everyone else.
FalconWhat makes your definition the official definition any more than anyone else's? If you try to sue someone who's inappropriately using the term, a judge is going to ask you the exact same thing. You're going to need a better answer than "we got there first".
The thing is is the OSI wasn't first to use "open source".
Falconthat anything that does not comply with the Open Source Definition isn't Open Source at all.
Again who gives the OSI the right to define what "open source" is? Open source existed before the OSI ever did.
FalconAunt Bea didn't have to worry about someone else selling pies with her name in Mayberry, but if she moved to Metropolis, someone somewhere would start selling "Aunt Bea's Pies", and if she didn't protect her name, their preservative laden crap would start being equated with her pies. Which just ain't right. Hence, what OSI is doing.
But what gives the OSI the right to be the only entity to decide what the definition of "open source" is? BSD existed way before the OSI did.
FalconPeople expect "Open Source" software to have all the rights required by the Open Source Definition.
You might but not everyone uses OSI's definition of open source. I certainly don't, though I've been using the term "open source" for years it's only been recently I learned the OSI came up with their own definition of it. For instance BSD is an open source license however it does not meet the OSI's definition.
Falconthe OSI is helping the IP owners (and they DO retain ownership) pursue legal action based on the license violations. Why all the hate?
What you say is true if you use someone else's code but if you entirely use your own code it's different. Writing all the code myself, if I creats a graphics program to revival Photoshop and release the source code but my license bars anyone one else from modifiying it, it is still open source. The OSI however is saying that unless your program license is the same as their's it not open source. The BSD license allows this I believe so it's not open source according to the OSI. If I'm right the BSD license even allows me to take someone else's BSD source code, modify it, then close the code as long as I include or credit all of the previous contributors to the code.
FalconI'm pretty sure you can get a trademark/copywhatsoever (IANAL) on "OSI Approved OSS", promote that as what "true/standardized" Open Source software is, and then you can have the legal ground to go after deceitful entities.
They coud do this but someone else could also go and say they have the "true/standardized" Open Source. As such it would not mean much. Now if the IEEE were to standardize what opensource meant then it could have some weight.
FalconI have a decently large DVD collection. Shortly before subscribing to netflix, I considered picking up a DVD burner and copying all of my Blockbuster rentals (it's the only rental shop near me). Shortly after subscribing, I found that I was no longer interested in owning DVDs. Why? I can have it tomorrow if I want to see it again.
Yeah, rent it. I prefer to own not rent. I too have a lot of movies, both on dvd and tape. I pay for a movie once and it's mine no matter how many tymes I watch it, and I've watched a number of movies a number of tymes. For instance "Hellfighters" I watch maybe every other month, first the tape I got of it and now the dvd. Another movie I like to watch is "To Catch A Thief" which I've watched maybe half a dozen tymes in the past year.
FalconThe original owners were smart enough to make a backup, then store the original. When the backup wore out, they'd pull the original and make another backup. That way the media lived on for far longer than it would have if the original media had been used.
Years ago that's what I used to do. The first tyme I played a brand new vinyl LP, record, on my turntable I'd record it on my reel-to-reel tape deck. I'd then put the record away for safe keeping and play the tape. When the tape eventually wore down I still had the record to make another tape of.
FalconIt's a defence to copyright infringement.
Copyright isn't a right either, despite what it's called. Copyright is a government granted monopoly of limited duration.
FalconThis could be the step that pushes consumers too far and backfires on them. If it isn't, well, they'll just keep tightening their grip until they do push the public too far, then the backlash will not only shock them
Unfortunately I doubt this will make consumers push back. If consumers didn't push back when copyrights were extended pass the creator's life and or DMCA this won't do it either.
FalconThere should be more than enough immigrants available to satisfy food demand. The management company, Soylent, Inc., always has plenty of people on hand for harvesting and processing.
Soylent? Soylent Green? Green chips anyone?
FalconThe problem I see with this is that they've actually done studies for greenhouses and hydroponics and found the energy requirements higher for the 'local grow' solution than shipping from south america to the USA.
"The Economist" magazine had an article on this which said in some circumstances flying a crop half way around the world is more energy efficient than a local farmer growing it.
FalconAnyway, they're solving a problem that doesn't really exist. We're growing far, far more food now than we actually eat if you look at corn and soybean production.
You're right it's not a problem now, but when peak oil comes around it will be. Petroleum products aren't just used to transport food, but to grow it as well. The farm trackers use it. Fertilizers are made from natural gas, and herbicides and pesticides are also made from petrochemicals.
If cows were eating grass again and farmers were growing other crops besides corn and soybeans again, we would get a lot more people-food from the farmland we have.
Agreed bigtime! The vast majority of crops like corn are grown to feed to cows and other animals which are then butchered for human consumption. If eating meat were reduced then less land would be needed for agriculture. I'm a meat eater, and not vegetarian or vegan, heck I love to hunt. But I do support cutting down on how much meat people eat.
FalconYou could use fiber optics to collect sunlight from all over the building's surface and redistribute it evenly to the plants inside. ...as a matter of fact, that would be a great idea for offices and residences on the insides of buildings, too... I wonder if anyone's working on implementing it.
There are things like Solar light tubes that transmit light to the interiors of buildings. These are getting to be popular in energy self-sefficient residential construction.
FalconWhat do you think tilling is for?
There's a problem with tilling though. The act of tilling soil breaks down the soil into smaller and smaller particles and these particles get washed away easier as well as don't hold as much moisture. Eventually it becomes dust.
FalconHuman excrement is VERY dangerous and VERY unhealthy to use as a fertilizer for human food (cholera, typhoid, hep A, etc...).
It is only if not properly and thoroughly composted. Thoroughly composting manure, humanure or not, will make a compost pile hot enough to distroy most any pathogens. See Temperature.
FalconMost natural environments can only produce crops during a single season.
It really depends on what the crop is. I used to live in Florida and I love to garden. At this tyme of the year I'd be readying to plant a second crop if I hadn't already, when I lived there. For some things I was able to get three plantings in a year.
Falconorganic farming cannot supply enough food to feed the world
Oh but organic farming can feed the world, however it either requires the elimination of these mega cities like Mexico City, Rio, and the ones sprouting up like mushrooms in China, with a population of millions, or it requires city farms.
Falconwhy do wind farms consist of all those huge windmills? wouldn't 100 times as many smaller windmills generate a similar amount of power?
Generally speaking large wind gennies, er mills, have lower rpms so there's less vibrations and it's thought they are less of a threat to wildlife. However because of the large blades the speed of the tips of the blades are actually faster. Some studies have shown the faster blade tips create the elusion of a solid object, however others have shown they create a strobe effect like strobe lights.
FalconYeah, what a bitch that English still keeps a few irregular plurals. Never mind that French also has irregular plurals. Never mind that French has irregular *adjectives*. Never mind that French verbs have more distinct forms, so there's more to remember about a verb irregularity. Never mind that French orthography itself is pretty messed up (last four consonants are optional!).
And depending on what gender the subject is, verbs are conjegated differently. If I recall right there are 6 different conjegations forget the particples and tenses. Je ne parle pas Francious, je suis oblage moi Francious.
Among European languages, English is about alone in:
-only having declension for pronouns
-no noun gender
-how few forms there are for each verb
In the sense that English doesn't have genders with verbs, it's easier. However it has a lot of verbs that conjegate irregularly, or are pronounced differently. Such as "read", it is spelled the same for future, past, and present tenses and while it's pronounced the same for future and present tenses the prenounciation is different for the past tense. However some words are borrowed from other languages.
Falcon