I've written several prose pieces where I have used Creative Commons to limit how it's used.
Except CC doesn't limit how it's used; only how it's redistributed.
With copyright law in general, there are some uses of a creative work for which the owner has no explicit or implied right to control. It's fair enough for you to get control over how your work is distributed as some monetary gain or loss is involved, but it wouldn't be fair for you to be able to tell people they can't put your work up on their walls, or ball it up and bury it in the backyard. How I use your work privately is my prerogative, and frankly, I'm glad you can't legally tell me otherwise.
"Does the constitution really indicate a preference?"
It doesn't, but it doesn't have to. They are challenging the current copyright regime under the First Amendment, as copyright is a regulation of speech and of the press. Copyright was always seen as a necessary evil to promote the arts (i.e. the progress clause).
Kahle and co. are now arguing that because of the Sonny Bono Act and the Copyright Renewal Act, copyright is now limiting speech beyond what is necessary by retaining exclusivity for those works that no longer have any commercial value.
I agree that the waterfall model is terrible when it comes to making a new system from scratch (if for no other reason than the sheer cost), but sometimes there's little alternative. An iterative model is suitable for general-use systems, but for specialized/legacy systems (or new functions that interface with said systems) where the customer dictates everything that the system will contain,what it will do, and how much time you're allotted for doing it, "We'll get to that feature eventually" doesn't fly.
I work for an organization that primarily sustains legacy government systems, and we use the waterfall model extensively. Amusingly enough, the quality of the user interfaces is subpar at best, and the user documentation severely lacking in that it gives no direction for general use of the software. In other words, I agree that completely specifying a UI before development doesn't necessarily (or even typically) produce a good product.
On the other hand, I'm not convinced that the release-fast/relase-often iterative approach is all that great for developing usable UIs either. UI releases need a certain amount of stability and consistency for users to feel comfortable in adopting them. A certain amount of maturity in the design is needed for this.
(The opinions expressed here are - of course - solely my own opinion, and I don't really give a damn as to what the opinions of my employer are [/end stupid disclaimer clause])
Slashdot Mirror
Except CC doesn't limit how it's used; only how it's redistributed.
With copyright law in general, there are some uses of a creative work for which the owner has no explicit or implied right to control. It's fair enough for you to get control over how your work is distributed as some monetary gain or loss is involved, but it wouldn't be fair for you to be able to tell people they can't put your work up on their walls, or ball it up and bury it in the backyard. How I use your work privately is my prerogative, and frankly, I'm glad you can't legally tell me otherwise.
"Does the constitution really indicate a preference?"
:)
It doesn't, but it doesn't have to. They are challenging the current copyright regime under the First Amendment, as copyright is a regulation of speech and of the press. Copyright was always seen as a necessary evil to promote the arts (i.e. the progress clause).
Kahle and co. are now arguing that because of the Sonny Bono Act and the Copyright Renewal Act, copyright is now limiting speech beyond what is necessary by retaining exclusivity for those works that no longer have any commercial value.
It's all in TFA.
How about:
.pj - The TLD exclusively for Groklaw fans
.beer - The potential is enormous. (AA.beer!)
.bigirls - Because the internet can never have too many.
.monkey - Because monkeys make the world go 'round.
I agree that the waterfall model is terrible when it comes to making a new system from scratch (if for no other reason than the sheer cost), but sometimes there's little alternative. An iterative model is suitable for general-use systems, but for specialized/legacy systems (or new functions that interface with said systems) where the customer dictates everything that the system will contain,what it will do, and how much time you're allotted for doing it, "We'll get to that feature eventually" doesn't fly.
I work for an organization that primarily sustains legacy government systems, and we use the waterfall model extensively. Amusingly enough, the quality of the user interfaces is subpar at best, and the user documentation severely lacking in that it gives no direction for general use of the software. In other words, I agree that completely specifying a UI before development doesn't necessarily (or even typically) produce a good product.
On the other hand, I'm not convinced that the release-fast/relase-often iterative approach is all that great for developing usable UIs either. UI releases need a certain amount of stability and consistency for users to feel comfortable in adopting them. A certain amount of maturity in the design is needed for this.
(The opinions expressed here are - of course - solely my own opinion, and I don't really give a damn as to what the opinions of my employer are [/end stupid disclaimer clause])