This is a silly way to look at the issue. Apple legally HAS to do everything they reasonably can to protect the iPod trademark. If they don't then they lose the protection.
Further, the claim that the RIAA made, that their music was advertisement for the iPod is nothing like Apple's claim that accessory vendors need to license the trademark to say 'Made for iPod.' The RIAA needs the devices that play music to exist, or no one will buy their music. You cannot make a straight-faced claim that because music is on a CD, a person will decide to buy a CD player. It doesn't happen like this.
For a vendor to claim that an FM transmitter with a standard 1/8" headphone jack is made specifically for an iPod is insane. The only reason to do this is to use Apple's popularity to earn yourself a few bucks. This is why companies are allowed to create trademarks; so you can protect the image or the things you create and try to sell.
If a vendor makes really crappy static filled headphones, do you want him telling the world that they work great with your product?
I'm not sure, but 'nuttily suspicious of centralized power' seems to be opposed by 'sanely contented by centralized power.' Could we reword that as blythly unaware? Or maybe we could call those people sheep. OR better yet, sheeple.
Who was it who said the price of liberty is constant vigilance? Gimme the source code, or don't use it.
1) We on the whole do not care to have better politicos. We don't vote, and we patronize the establishments of folks like Wal-Mart who demand favorable treatment from local gov't under the guise of providing jobs (never mind that they destroy just as many jobs by undercutting those against whom they compete), and Disney (was that post today about them pulling back a movie critical of the Bush family because they stand to get massive tax breaks from Jeb?).
2) If our education system is currently broken, it has been for some years, and the people now in power were educated either a) so poorly that they cannot imagine unintended consequences of their actions, or b) without a moral compass to help them see what is right and wrong.
I don't mean to be on a rant, and I am not trying to troll or flame anyone. I just want people (you, me, your friends and mine) to read the news, think about it, and vote with our heads, not based on spin.
My Thoughts on Baroque
on
The Confusion
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Thanks for the review. It was well written, and mostly how I thought about the two books. I cannot but expect my impression to change, though, when System comes out this fall. This is not 3 separate books, it's one really big one, and I expect that we are going to see some major ties to Cryptonomicon in 3.
Since the major theme of Crypto was the development of a secure form of electronic currency, and the machinations that went into it, I expect to have some more great ties to the idea of credit and soft currency and trade drawn in System.
Is is only me or did some of the themes in the book, a la the Royal Society's rise and fall based on political support, patronage, etc., ring alarm bells to those of us in the F/OSS community? Is there a parallel to the beginnings of modern science and commerse to be found in the study of the Scientific Revolution? If so, technology is going to get cool in 50 years.
It should have said that Longhord will be released WHEN the average computer is [that good].
By Math, that Proc Speed is around 18 mos. away to start. So figure to the average PC user in 24-30 mos? For the Processor.
How is it they seem to think that the Aunt Tillie (read:average) user is going to setup a striped array of disks? Oh, we're going to have terrabyte disks in a 3.5" bay? Is this a secret MS patent? This is 5-10 years away from the consumer (HD @ 1,000GB).
Anyone see a parallel between MS today and Apple in 1994-95 with the whole OS 9, no wait, BeOS, no wait, NeXT, it'll be out someday?
Can someone please tell my what exactly I am going to be doing in 2-3 years that I am not doing now, which will require that I have a terabyte of storage (although I would'nt say no to it today, I don't need it)? I have to wonder what 'new and improved' things will be running in Longhorn that require all of these resources, and exactly how all of these things using resources is going to 'improve security' of MS products?
Aren't we (we fine sceptics and intellectuals, all) the Illuminati? I thought we were. And MS & other Big Biz (DRM enablers) the parallel to the Church dictating our morality?
Seriously, The over-under for DVDJon cracking this thing it 14 days.
Not to head off into off-topic land, but we haven't, as a nation, even thougth about this since (say) FDR. The erosion of our civil rights continues, especially in the name of Patriotism (aka the Patriot act) or big business (aka DMCA, etc).
There is only one thing to be done by a US citizen. Register to Vote Tomorrow.
In S2's reply to the subpeona, they indicated something interesting. They, 1) say they don't want to give info about communication with SCO, 2) say they don't have anything related to BayStar, and 3) say they don't want to give stuff related to Microsoft.
This can really only mean one thing: that they discussed with MS and SCO the subject matter of this suit. And they did not with BayStar (which was introduced to SCO admittedly by Microsoft).
IBM can only be getting ready to go after MS, though possibly indirectly via the anti-trust folks. They can make a great case, I would guess, for unfair and deceptive trade practices, and I doubt that they will roll over and die like W.'s administration.
What is what Real really wants is not to be a peer, but rather to start being a content-pimp for Apple.
Take MLB's deal. Change the file format away from a Real format to an Apple controlled format, and then let Real be the content producer, and streamer.
I don't see this as compromising Apple's business, or really, Real's core business, but it does align the two players in a way that puts them against the MS juggernaut.
Real has credibility with content producers, NPR, MLB, etc., and the saavy to make deals with advertisers, etc. Apple has the platform for viewing/listening. I think there is a definite confluence of interest, as long a Apple maintains control of the desktop player component (and by extention iPod).
So is it a better idea to allow software copyright, or to allow software patents? Patents expire (soon-ish), while copyrights go on seemingly forever (lifetimes++).
The whole car-mechanic metaphor is not apt. The whole music industry in so insane,as to have no really good durable product analogies.
The music industry invented the concept of performance rights (that (P) you see on CDs) so that they could control the particular sound recording under copyright rules in much the same way as the artist.
I ask why in the Book publishing world we do not have an equivalent to (p), but instead the author licenses the rights to publish a work to a publisher, while still maintaining copyright. The (p) is a bad thing, especially when you consider that the artist actually paid to record the music company's copyrighed work, i.e., that particular (p) recording. Further consider that the artist pays to market the music industry's work, to manufacture it on CD, and such.
The music industry has far fewer costs associated with what is distributed than does a book publisher, yet charges in the same price, keeping the white meat, and passing the costs on to the artist.
I have to say that I agree with all of you about users having a responsibility to keep their machines patched, etc. But as an industry we really haven't set up the tools to help them.
Windows Update. Need I say more? The thing doesn't really work.
Everything else is arcane to a new or uneducated user.
I'm not advocating that Comcast is wrong. God knows, their $20 is not worth the hell that is removing the blaster worm, but...
Directly to the spam-bot question... Why do open SMTP relays still exist on the Internet? Where is the working group that is making an authenticated (=~secure protocol) for mail transport?
It seems to me that booting users due to spam-bots is like putting a band-aid over a compound fracture. Why not work to fix the real problem and build an authenticated (and less hackable) e-mail system with a new protocol? One that prevents a user from setting up a new relay server in minutes, on someone else's machine?
We've built a lot of tools that are powerful, but once we find the unintended consequences, we blame the user. Is that fair?
I have to interject here that we have a major lack of education problem.
It's hard enough for us as techno-people to keep up with configuring and patching our systems, and keeping the virus defs updated, and the firewall secure. Now we expect John and Jane User to do it while they still think that the E-icon on the desktop 'IS THE INTERNET.'
While it is good that Comcast is doing something about the problem, this is a bad solution to the problem.
We as the People-Who-Know need to be spending time helping those who don't to become self-reliant, rather than telling them 'Sorry. You can't access the net until you clean up your system. Sorry, I can't really help you do it. Call someone else.'
Anyone remember when Bart and Lisa Simpson said there was a badger in the dog house? Homer sticks his head in while assuring the kids it's just a nice doggy.
Now SCO... Why would a nice dog house have any lawyers in it. There's no lawyer in there. See? ? Arghghghh (expletives deleted) D'Oh!
BP is right. This is just speeding the fine SCO down the highway to hell, though I'm not sure why we're not standing on the road cheering them. You know like the French do for Lance Armstrong. Go Faster. Faster.
Their strategy seems like invading Russia while fighting a war in Europe. (One of the 3 classic blunders)
And I do mean the obvious double entendre. Let's just keep using the old non-DRM format. It that means no MS, then OK.
If anyone needs a copy of non-DRM-forced Media Player or iTunes or VLC, I have.exe or.gzip files I will mail us.
I do not believe that a company can legally force you to modify your information if you decide not to use their software. So what if I can't use Longhorn.
Besides, in the time it will take to actually release it, someone will crack the DRM (can you say CSS).
Why won't the RIAA spend its money giving us value instead of crappy music. I buy music I want to listen to. I just like to manage my music in MP3 format. blah blah blah
Thanks for getting it. Something of a jab at the somewhat obsequeous comments about literature (Pynchon, Stephenson, et al) made by 'the right educated professor-man'. Not sure how the Reagan comment helped his argument.
Though the meat of the Rand comment is pretty solid.
It is a commonly made argument by people (who tend to be left-leaning) that it is important to understand the circumstances under which someone cheats.
Here that is just stupid. Either Darl & Co. have a legit claim (which I doubt, due to their continuing refusal to actually demonstrate it), or they are trying to extort through misuse of process.
I don't care what circumstances caused them to decide to misuse process. I do care that this is causing a problem for a potentially excellent alternative to windows, a problem that is almost as big as the swamp of licencing XFree is in now.
To claim that it is important to consider motivations and circumstances is a falacy grounded in a twisted ad hominem (feel sorry for me and give me stuff) argument.
And if you want a Literary Reference... try Darl McBride as Peter Keating (The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand) -- a person without the ability to create who continually hijacks the efforts of those who can.
Hear me out... There are some questions that need to be decided by a court (not withstanding the particulars of SCO v IBM). 1) What constitutes a derivative work with regards to software? and 2) Exactly how enforcable is the GPL? I think the first question is difficult to discuss, but the second should be pretty quick and easy.
It'll be good IMHO to get a court to say that the GPL is just fine and perfectly enforcible, and to put down a real, legal test for derivative software.
Amendment to my last...
Paragraph 2: I don't believe that that is what the GPL says.
Paragraph 3: Regarding the proposed filter Term 0, paragraph 2 seems to deny your claim.
Paragraph 4: 'Neither party can enter into an agreement in which one or the other can be significantly harmed by agreement' Do you really believe this? Is this the stupidity safety net. Further SCO did not intend anything, since they did not make the agreement AT+T did.
Stop posting. You are obviously attempting to justify the unjustifiable. Either show the code, and show its full life cycle, and show the license agreement, or stop. SCO have no case, they (you) know it, and I'll make $ with puts on SCOX.
Source for GPL:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
I appreciate the lesson on the GPL. But I have two questions. 1) Did SCO intend, or did someone else intend and then allow that intention to the sold to the company that is now SCO? If the latter, when will the party of the original intention be submitting a deposition? And 2) Since the entire claim rests on this agreement, when will it be submitted to the court (or is it?) -- where can I read it?
What???
Let's examine the term. Original Code. Implication : the original author decided to release it under GPL. Subsequent modification of this code (i.e., derivitave work, lay term: modification, update, bug-fix, etc.) must be released as well.
To imply that code written which leverages the code (e.g., accessing a DLL) is derivative is simply stupid. Is SCO under obligation to disclose all networking code because they leverage samba in their distro? Obviously not.
If they modify samba to fix something for their distro's quirks, then do they have to release the code. Likely, but this is more interesting question.
GPL basics. If you want to use my code and improve on it or make it do something additional, you have to release your source, too. If you don't want to do this. Write all of the code YOURSELF.
You cannot decide ex post facto to dictate your licensing terms. Terms are explicit (or implied) when you distribute.
Are you an Anonymous Coward from the sco.com domain. Your comments are so obtuse that I need an asprin.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a silly way to look at the issue. Apple legally HAS to do everything they reasonably can to protect the iPod trademark. If they don't then they lose the protection. Further, the claim that the RIAA made, that their music was advertisement for the iPod is nothing like Apple's claim that accessory vendors need to license the trademark to say 'Made for iPod.' The RIAA needs the devices that play music to exist, or no one will buy their music. You cannot make a straight-faced claim that because music is on a CD, a person will decide to buy a CD player. It doesn't happen like this. For a vendor to claim that an FM transmitter with a standard 1/8" headphone jack is made specifically for an iPod is insane. The only reason to do this is to use Apple's popularity to earn yourself a few bucks. This is why companies are allowed to create trademarks; so you can protect the image or the things you create and try to sell. If a vendor makes really crappy static filled headphones, do you want him telling the world that they work great with your product?
I'm not sure, but 'nuttily suspicious of centralized power' seems to be opposed by 'sanely contented by centralized power.' Could we reword that as blythly unaware? Or maybe we could call those people sheep. OR better yet, sheeple.
Who was it who said the price of liberty is constant vigilance? Gimme the source code, or don't use it.
WTF is wrong with the government of this country?
1) We on the whole do not care to have better politicos. We don't vote, and we patronize the establishments of folks like Wal-Mart who demand favorable treatment from local gov't under the guise of providing jobs (never mind that they destroy just as many jobs by undercutting those against whom they compete), and Disney (was that post today about them pulling back a movie critical of the Bush family because they stand to get massive tax breaks from Jeb?).
2) If our education system is currently broken, it has been for some years, and the people now in power were educated either a) so poorly that they cannot imagine unintended consequences of their actions, or b) without a moral compass to help them see what is right and wrong.
I don't mean to be on a rant, and I am not trying to troll or flame anyone. I just want people (you, me, your friends and mine) to read the news, think about it, and vote with our heads, not based on spin.
Thanks for the review. It was well written, and mostly how I thought about the two books. I cannot but expect my impression to change, though, when System comes out this fall. This is not 3 separate books, it's one really big one, and I expect that we are going to see some major ties to Cryptonomicon in 3.
Since the major theme of Crypto was the development of a secure form of electronic currency, and the machinations that went into it, I expect to have some more great ties to the idea of credit and soft currency and trade drawn in System.
Is is only me or did some of the themes in the book, a la the Royal Society's rise and fall based on political support, patronage, etc., ring alarm bells to those of us in the F/OSS community? Is there a parallel to the beginnings of modern science and commerse to be found in the study of the Scientific Revolution? If so, technology is going to get cool in 50 years.
Had to be a typo:
It should have said that Longhord will be released WHEN the average computer is [that good].
By Math, that Proc Speed is around 18 mos. away to start. So figure to the average PC user in 24-30 mos? For the Processor.
How is it they seem to think that the Aunt Tillie (read:average) user is going to setup a striped array of disks? Oh, we're going to have terrabyte disks in a 3.5" bay? Is this a secret MS patent? This is 5-10 years away from the consumer (HD @ 1,000GB).
Anyone see a parallel between MS today and Apple in 1994-95 with the whole OS 9, no wait, BeOS, no wait, NeXT, it'll be out someday?
Can someone please tell my what exactly I am going to be doing in 2-3 years that I am not doing now, which will require that I have a terabyte of storage (although I would'nt say no to it today, I don't need it)? I have to wonder what 'new and improved' things will be running in Longhorn that require all of these resources, and exactly how all of these things using resources is going to 'improve security' of MS products?
Aren't we (we fine sceptics and intellectuals, all) the Illuminati? I thought we were. And MS & other Big Biz (DRM enablers) the parallel to the Church dictating our morality? Seriously, The over-under for DVDJon cracking this thing it 14 days.
Not to split hairs, but PJ (IMHO) is definitely worth $400 an hour.
Not to head off into off-topic land, but we haven't, as a nation, even thougth about this since (say) FDR. The erosion of our civil rights continues, especially in the name of Patriotism (aka the Patriot act) or big business (aka DMCA, etc).
There is only one thing to be done by a US citizen. Register to Vote Tomorrow.
In S2's reply to the subpeona, they indicated something interesting. They, 1) say they don't want to give info about communication with SCO, 2) say they don't have anything related to BayStar, and 3) say they don't want to give stuff related to Microsoft.
This can really only mean one thing: that they discussed with MS and SCO the subject matter of this suit. And they did not with BayStar (which was introduced to SCO admittedly by Microsoft).
IBM can only be getting ready to go after MS, though possibly indirectly via the anti-trust folks. They can make a great case, I would guess, for unfair and deceptive trade practices, and I doubt that they will roll over and die like W.'s administration.
What is what Real really wants is not to be a peer, but rather to start being a content-pimp for Apple.
Take MLB's deal. Change the file format away from a Real format to an Apple controlled format, and then let Real be the content producer, and streamer.
I don't see this as compromising Apple's business, or really, Real's core business, but it does align the two players in a way that puts them against the MS juggernaut.
Real has credibility with content producers, NPR, MLB, etc., and the saavy to make deals with advertisers, etc. Apple has the platform for viewing/listening. I think there is a definite confluence of interest, as long a Apple maintains control of the desktop player component (and by extention iPod).
So is it a better idea to allow software copyright, or to allow software patents? Patents expire (soon-ish), while copyrights go on seemingly forever (lifetimes++).
The whole car-mechanic metaphor is not apt. The whole music industry in so insane,as to have no really good durable product analogies.
The music industry invented the concept of performance rights (that (P) you see on CDs) so that they could control the particular sound recording under copyright rules in much the same way as the artist.
I ask why in the Book publishing world we do not have an equivalent to (p), but instead the author licenses the rights to publish a work to a publisher, while still maintaining copyright. The (p) is a bad thing, especially when you consider that the artist actually paid to record the music company's copyrighed work, i.e., that particular (p) recording. Further consider that the artist pays to market the music industry's work, to manufacture it on CD, and such.
The music industry has far fewer costs associated with what is distributed than does a book publisher, yet charges in the same price, keeping the white meat, and passing the costs on to the artist.
Is this OK?
I have to say that I agree with all of you about users having a responsibility to keep their machines patched, etc. But as an industry we really haven't set up the tools to help them.
Windows Update. Need I say more? The thing doesn't really work.
Everything else is arcane to a new or uneducated user.
I'm not advocating that Comcast is wrong. God knows, their $20 is not worth the hell that is removing the blaster worm, but...
Directly to the spam-bot question... Why do open SMTP relays still exist on the Internet? Where is the working group that is making an authenticated (=~secure protocol) for mail transport?
It seems to me that booting users due to spam-bots is like putting a band-aid over a compound fracture. Why not work to fix the real problem and build an authenticated (and less hackable) e-mail system with a new protocol? One that prevents a user from setting up a new relay server in minutes, on someone else's machine?
We've built a lot of tools that are powerful, but once we find the unintended consequences, we blame the user. Is that fair?
I have to interject here that we have a major lack of education problem.
It's hard enough for us as techno-people to keep up with configuring and patching our systems, and keeping the virus defs updated, and the firewall secure. Now we expect John and Jane User to do it while they still think that the E-icon on the desktop 'IS THE INTERNET.'
While it is good that Comcast is doing something about the problem, this is a bad solution to the problem.
We as the People-Who-Know need to be spending time helping those who don't to become self-reliant, rather than telling them 'Sorry. You can't access the net until you clean up your system. Sorry, I can't really help you do it. Call someone else.'
Anyone agree with this?
Anyone remember when Bart and Lisa Simpson said there was a badger in the dog house? Homer sticks his head in while assuring the kids it's just a nice doggy.
Now SCO... Why would a nice dog house have any lawyers in it. There's no lawyer in there. See? ? Arghghghh (expletives deleted) D'Oh!
BP is right. This is just speeding the fine SCO down the highway to hell, though I'm not sure why we're not standing on the road cheering them. You know like the French do for Lance Armstrong. Go Faster. Faster.
Their strategy seems like invading Russia while fighting a war in Europe. (One of the 3 classic blunders)
And I do mean the obvious double entendre. Let's just keep using the old non-DRM format. It that means no MS, then OK.
.exe or .gzip files I will mail us.
If anyone needs a copy of non-DRM-forced Media Player or iTunes or VLC, I have
I do not believe that a company can legally force you to modify your information if you decide not to use their software. So what if I can't use Longhorn.
Besides, in the time it will take to actually release it, someone will crack the DRM (can you say CSS).
Why won't the RIAA spend its money giving us value instead of crappy music. I buy music I want to listen to. I just like to manage my music in MP3 format. blah blah blah
Open Source possess code of mass (us) destruction.
We are sure of this. We know it. Believe us, it's there.
IBM put it there.
We must invade (AIX) IBM to show you, though.
Thanks for getting it. Something of a jab at the somewhat obsequeous comments about literature (Pynchon, Stephenson, et al) made by 'the right educated professor-man'. Not sure how the Reagan comment helped his argument.
Though the meat of the Rand comment is pretty solid.
It is a commonly made argument by people (who tend to be left-leaning) that it is important to understand the circumstances under which someone cheats.
Here that is just stupid. Either Darl & Co. have a legit claim (which I doubt, due to their continuing refusal to actually demonstrate it), or they are trying to extort through misuse of process.
I don't care what circumstances caused them to decide to misuse process. I do care that this is causing a problem for a potentially excellent alternative to windows, a problem that is almost as big as the swamp of licencing XFree is in now.
To claim that it is important to consider motivations and circumstances is a falacy grounded in a twisted ad hominem (feel sorry for me and give me stuff) argument.
And if you want a Literary Reference... try Darl McBride as Peter Keating (The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand) -- a person without the ability to create who continually hijacks the efforts of those who can.
Hear me out... There are some questions that need to be decided by a court (not withstanding the particulars of SCO v IBM). 1) What constitutes a derivative work with regards to software? and 2) Exactly how enforcable is the GPL? I think the first question is difficult to discuss, but the second should be pretty quick and easy.
It'll be good IMHO to get a court to say that the GPL is just fine and perfectly enforcible, and to put down a real, legal test for derivative software.
Any disagreement?
Amendment to my last... Paragraph 2: I don't believe that that is what the GPL says. Paragraph 3: Regarding the proposed filter Term 0, paragraph 2 seems to deny your claim. Paragraph 4: 'Neither party can enter into an agreement in which one or the other can be significantly harmed by agreement' Do you really believe this? Is this the stupidity safety net. Further SCO did not intend anything, since they did not make the agreement AT+T did. Stop posting. You are obviously attempting to justify the unjustifiable. Either show the code, and show its full life cycle, and show the license agreement, or stop. SCO have no case, they (you) know it, and I'll make $ with puts on SCOX. Source for GPL: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
I appreciate the lesson on the GPL. But I have two questions. 1) Did SCO intend, or did someone else intend and then allow that intention to the sold to the company that is now SCO? If the latter, when will the party of the original intention be submitting a deposition? And 2) Since the entire claim rests on this agreement, when will it be submitted to the court (or is it?) -- where can I read it?
What??? Let's examine the term. Original Code. Implication : the original author decided to release it under GPL. Subsequent modification of this code (i.e., derivitave work, lay term: modification, update, bug-fix, etc.) must be released as well. To imply that code written which leverages the code (e.g., accessing a DLL) is derivative is simply stupid. Is SCO under obligation to disclose all networking code because they leverage samba in their distro? Obviously not. If they modify samba to fix something for their distro's quirks, then do they have to release the code. Likely, but this is more interesting question. GPL basics. If you want to use my code and improve on it or make it do something additional, you have to release your source, too. If you don't want to do this. Write all of the code YOURSELF. You cannot decide ex post facto to dictate your licensing terms. Terms are explicit (or implied) when you distribute. Are you an Anonymous Coward from the sco.com domain. Your comments are so obtuse that I need an asprin.
Guinness in a bottle...? BRILLIANT!!!