I think it's sad that all the educational and research departments must shoulder the burden of state budget cuts, while athletics gets to keep most (if not all) of its spoils.
Sure, someone could continue a GPL fork of what has already been released. But I've got no obligation to continue to distribute source code. I'm sure there are lots of small projects where *nobody* has the source but the original author, and in those cases, nobody would be able to fork it without the author's cooperation.
For someone to make a really good fork of an existing GPL project, they would need a complete set of source code that's capable of producing at least the fork point of the original package. Otherwise, why bother?
You're correct. I incorrectly stated that you had to give the modifications directly back to the author. However you still have to disclose your modifications as source code if you chose to redistribute the modified program and that is practically the same thing. The minor difference being that the author can still have access to the changes, yet he can request them rather than you automatically giving it to him. He could also get it with a copy of your version of the software.
Sure technically I was mistaken, but practically I was not. I place this argument in the "splitting hairs" category.
The case law with respect to this is highly lacking.
I am not a lawyer, however:
So you base your doubt on the lack of court cases involving forked projects? The lack of case law could be attributed to the contract agreement between the original author and the code users of the GPL version. The original developer convincing the court that the contract is null and void seems like a large obstacle to pass. Especially when the defendant is being accused to upholding their end of the written agreement, and I don't see a revocation clause within the GPL agreement.
The original author is free to make his new code more restrictive, however people who continue to use the code that was originally licensed as GPL has a contractual agreement that they are free to continue to make modifications of said code as long as they make a credible effort to send the changes back to the original developer.
The irony being that the submitted changes are copyrighted by the submitter and that code can not be added to the now non-GPL code of the original author.
GPL says that you can swing your arms as long as you don't punch my nose.
FTFY
GPL is more for protecting the originating developer's right, while the BSD protects the user's freedoms. For example under BSD, the users are free to do whatever they want with the code (as long as they give credit). On the other hand, GPL users are also free to do whatever they want with the exception that they must provide the source code of any modifications back to the original author.
If I release a project under GPL, I can create a non-GPL license fork later.
FTFY
You can choose to change your license on new code. However the code that is already release will remain GPL and can continue under someone else's leadership.
What the article is saying that the GPL license marketshare is in decline, while the other less restrictive opens source licenses' marketshare is on the rise.
In other words, a large number of new open source projects are not choosing to use GPL licensing. While technically the number of GPL projects are not declining, their future relevancy (as far as the general computing community is concerned) is falling.
Since the goal of most GPL projects are to "scratch a particular itch" and not to be the most popular solution, I don't see this as something that a GPL project should be concerned with. Yet I do see this as a wake up call to GNU, since their goal is to remain a relevant force in community software.
I don't give a shit if the Megacorp doesn't like that I purchased a cheap paperback Indian copy instead of the overpriced, glossybacked American copy. Sucks to be them. It's not my responsibility to bendover and kiss its ass..... it is not my girlfriend. I have every right as a free citizen (not a megacorp slave) to buy the cheapest copy I can find. It's called free trade.
I don't believe this case is about your ability to purchase cheap indian paperback books. This case is about a Thai student's ability to import cheap indian paperback books and resell them in the US using E-bay.
Nothing prevents you from traveling to India, purchasing the books, and bringing them back and declaring them through customs. The small amount of money you probably spent wouldn't amount to any import duties since they are technically for your personal use.
I think the line that was crossed was that the books were obviously purchased in India with the intention of selling them in the US. I do think that $600,000 for 8 textbooks is beyond excessive.
Based on Al Perry's comments do we assume that "monetize" is defined by Paramount and the rest of the MPAA/RIAA as the use of extortion tactics to gain revenue from copyrighted materials, or maybe it's not monetizing unless the courts are involved?
The fact that Louis CK was able to make one million dollars in 12 days yet not meet Al Perry's definition of "monetize" implies this.
It's not fraud if it's not used to evade taxes and there isn't anything inherently wrong with spreading the margins to cover the operating costs and profitability among the subsidiaries. The only thing that is being done in this case is the industry being disingenuous with its implying that their low profit margin at the retail gasoline pump means that they barely have a profit margin at all.
I agree that eventually eBook pricing should fall, however I don't think it will come from publisher's voluntarily changing their pricing model. I think the more likely scenario is that the lower cost to market for eBooks will create more independent publishers which means more competition and ultimately lowering the price that the market will bear for a particular type of book. We are seeing evidence of this already.
I know I'm able to buy digital versions of books from independent publishers cheaper than their paper version which seems logical. However the traditional publishers have inertia working against them and will continue to have a large production of paper based books distributed to retailers who are motivated to move them off the shelf as quickly as possible while still trying to make a profit.
Until the market for eBooks reaches critical mass, we will continue to see the traditional clearance pricing model associated with paper based books.
So what you're saying is paper books are cheaper because they're more expensive...?
No. I'm saying paper books will naturally lower in price when the price of keeping it in inventory is greater than selling at a discount and making room for a book that may actually be purchased close to its list price. Basically the paper books are cheaper because of the retailers need to cut their losses.
I'm not justifying eBooks higher cost. I'm just pointing out that there are deflationary pressures on traditional books that doesn't appear to exist for its digital counterpart.
This case, however, is about Apple setting the minimum price that it's competitors can SELL an ebook for, not the price that the competitors PAY for the ebook.
How is Apple forcing its competitors to charge more?
What I do see are publishers demonstrating to retailers like Amazon that they can get more favorable terms from a competitor and using that fact to negotiate more favorable terms from that retailer. If Amazon wants to charge the consumer less than what they have to pay the publisher for each copy sold then I'm pretty sure they can. It depends on how much profit Amazon is really making from its eReader sales.
There is nothing wrong with making a profit (regardless of size).
My point was that the petroleum industry (like the motion picture industry) have become skilled at hiding their true margins.
Where are the pundits and politicians calling for a windfall profit tax on Apple?
I don't think pundits and politicians are calling for a windfall profit tax on the petroleum industry. I know the petroleum industry would like us to think this is what is being asked for so they can play the victim. No what I see is a reasonable request to quit subsidizing an industry with huge profits with tax payer money.
Well. Since ebooks seem to be priced at higher than print book prices....no. no they are not cheap at all.
The thing that people seem to forget when arguing that ebooks should be cheaper is the fact that it costs money to have a paper based book sit in inventory. Eventually the publisher and/or retailer will be willing to take a loss and sell that book at a steep discount in order to make room for a more popular book with more potential to make a sale.
Since digital books take no physical space, there is no incentive to move product out the door.
Yes it costs more to produce a paper based book, but there is a shelf life of profitability for that book. Digital works have no such liability since it's much cheaper to produce and costs next to nothing to store.
They are asking why prices went up from $9.99 to $14.99 uniformly for ebooks sold by publishers after Apple entered the market.
Nothing wrong with asking. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the reason the prices went up was due to Apple not taking a loss in order to sale a dedicated eReader like Amazon does and publishers preferring to do business that gave them more favorable terms. Nobody is forcing consumers into purchasing an iPad nor are iPad users forced to purchase their books from Apple. You can still purchase books from Amazon and B&N and still read them on the iPad.
If Amazon and B&N can still offer more variety of books at a lower price then more power to them. Apple has made no attempts to prevent eBooks from other sources from being read on the iPad.
Imagine if Walmart put this rule saying that no store can sell any products that they sell at a lower cost.
I think Radio-Flyer doesn't need to imagine this. There are plenty of documented cases of Walmart using their dominant retail position to strong arm companies into lowering their product's pricing by a set percentage each year and offering Walmart the best discount possible.
Hell it made news when Snapper lawn mowers refused to bow down to pressure from Walmart.
Exxon's profit not only comes from the shear volume of sales but they make a margin throughout the petroleum delivery chain. They spread their revenue across drilling, transportation, refining, pipeline traversal, wholesale, and finally retail.
A little late don't you think? The TSA's job is to keep bomb-looking devices OFF the plane, not discover them 5 hours later after the flight is already over.
I bet the TSA agent at the departing airport questioned the student when he/she went through the metal detectors and X-rays. The student probably explained what the gadget was and/or the agent found no explosive residue and let the student and his project on board the plane. When the student accidentally left the gadget on the plane at the arrival airport, a different set of agents boarded the plane and found a strange remote control device that was left behind. So they had to err on the side of caution.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's sad that all the educational and research departments must shoulder the burden of state budget cuts, while athletics gets to keep most (if not all) of its spoils.
For someone to make a really good fork of an existing GPL project, they would need a complete set of source code that's capable of producing at least the fork point of the original package. Otherwise, why bother?
You're correct. I incorrectly stated that you had to give the modifications directly back to the author. However you still have to disclose your modifications as source code if you chose to redistribute the modified program and that is practically the same thing. The minor difference being that the author can still have access to the changes, yet he can request them rather than you automatically giving it to him. He could also get it with a copy of your version of the software.
Sure technically I was mistaken, but practically I was not. I place this argument in the "splitting hairs" category.
I am not a lawyer, however:
So you base your doubt on the lack of court cases involving forked projects? The lack of case law could be attributed to the contract agreement between the original author and the code users of the GPL version. The original developer convincing the court that the contract is null and void seems like a large obstacle to pass. Especially when the defendant is being accused to upholding their end of the written agreement, and I don't see a revocation clause within the GPL agreement.
The original author is free to make his new code more restrictive, however people who continue to use the code that was originally licensed as GPL has a contractual agreement that they are free to continue to make modifications of said code as long as they make a credible effort to send the changes back to the original developer.
The irony being that the submitted changes are copyrighted by the submitter and that code can not be added to the now non-GPL code of the original author.
FTFY
GPL is more for protecting the originating developer's right, while the BSD protects the user's freedoms. For example under BSD, the users are free to do whatever they want with the code (as long as they give credit). On the other hand, GPL users are also free to do whatever they want with the exception that they must provide the source code of any modifications back to the original author.
FTFY
You can choose to change your license on new code. However the code that is already release will remain GPL and can continue under someone else's leadership.
What the article is saying that the GPL license marketshare is in decline, while the other less restrictive opens source licenses' marketshare is on the rise.
In other words, a large number of new open source projects are not choosing to use GPL licensing. While technically the number of GPL projects are not declining, their future relevancy (as far as the general computing community is concerned) is falling.
Since the goal of most GPL projects are to "scratch a particular itch" and not to be the most popular solution, I don't see this as something that a GPL project should be concerned with. Yet I do see this as a wake up call to GNU, since their goal is to remain a relevant force in community software.
I work with people who use FORTAN because it's not only tried and tested but also the fastest for numerical computing.
Yes and is used extensively. There are even C libraries that include FORTRAN code to numerical work quickly.
Well luckily we have an interstate commerce clause written in the US Constitution.
I don't believe this case is about your ability to purchase cheap indian paperback books. This case is about a Thai student's ability to import cheap indian paperback books and resell them in the US using E-bay.
Nothing prevents you from traveling to India, purchasing the books, and bringing them back and declaring them through customs. The small amount of money you probably spent wouldn't amount to any import duties since they are technically for your personal use.
I think the line that was crossed was that the books were obviously purchased in India with the intention of selling them in the US. I do think that $600,000 for 8 textbooks is beyond excessive.
Based on Al Perry's comments do we assume that "monetize" is defined by Paramount and the rest of the MPAA/RIAA as the use of extortion tactics to gain revenue from copyrighted materials, or maybe it's not monetizing unless the courts are involved?
The fact that Louis CK was able to make one million dollars in 12 days yet not meet Al Perry's definition of "monetize" implies this.
Cinderblock dead ahead!
It's not fraud if it's not used to evade taxes and there isn't anything inherently wrong with spreading the margins to cover the operating costs and profitability among the subsidiaries. The only thing that is being done in this case is the industry being disingenuous with its implying that their low profit margin at the retail gasoline pump means that they barely have a profit margin at all.
I agree that eventually eBook pricing should fall, however I don't think it will come from publisher's voluntarily changing their pricing model. I think the more likely scenario is that the lower cost to market for eBooks will create more independent publishers which means more competition and ultimately lowering the price that the market will bear for a particular type of book. We are seeing evidence of this already.
I know I'm able to buy digital versions of books from independent publishers cheaper than their paper version which seems logical. However the traditional publishers have inertia working against them and will continue to have a large production of paper based books distributed to retailers who are motivated to move them off the shelf as quickly as possible while still trying to make a profit.
Until the market for eBooks reaches critical mass, we will continue to see the traditional clearance pricing model associated with paper based books.
No. I'm saying paper books will naturally lower in price when the price of keeping it in inventory is greater than selling at a discount and making room for a book that may actually be purchased close to its list price. Basically the paper books are cheaper because of the retailers need to cut their losses.
I'm not justifying eBooks higher cost. I'm just pointing out that there are deflationary pressures on traditional books that doesn't appear to exist for its digital counterpart.
How is Apple forcing its competitors to charge more?
What I do see are publishers demonstrating to retailers like Amazon that they can get more favorable terms from a competitor and using that fact to negotiate more favorable terms from that retailer. If Amazon wants to charge the consumer less than what they have to pay the publisher for each copy sold then I'm pretty sure they can. It depends on how much profit Amazon is really making from its eReader sales.
There is nothing wrong with making a profit (regardless of size).
My point was that the petroleum industry (like the motion picture industry) have become skilled at hiding their true margins.
I don't think pundits and politicians are calling for a windfall profit tax on the petroleum industry. I know the petroleum industry would like us to think this is what is being asked for so they can play the victim. No what I see is a reasonable request to quit subsidizing an industry with huge profits with tax payer money.
The thing that people seem to forget when arguing that ebooks should be cheaper is the fact that it costs money to have a paper based book sit in inventory. Eventually the publisher and/or retailer will be willing to take a loss and sell that book at a steep discount in order to make room for a more popular book with more potential to make a sale.
Since digital books take no physical space, there is no incentive to move product out the door.
Yes it costs more to produce a paper based book, but there is a shelf life of profitability for that book. Digital works have no such liability since it's much cheaper to produce and costs next to nothing to store.
Nothing wrong with asking. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the reason the prices went up was due to Apple not taking a loss in order to sale a dedicated eReader like Amazon does and publishers preferring to do business that gave them more favorable terms. Nobody is forcing consumers into purchasing an iPad nor are iPad users forced to purchase their books from Apple. You can still purchase books from Amazon and B&N and still read them on the iPad.
If Amazon and B&N can still offer more variety of books at a lower price then more power to them. Apple has made no attempts to prevent eBooks from other sources from being read on the iPad.
I think Radio-Flyer doesn't need to imagine this. There are plenty of documented cases of Walmart using their dominant retail position to strong arm companies into lowering their product's pricing by a set percentage each year and offering Walmart the best discount possible.
Hell it made news when Snapper lawn mowers refused to bow down to pressure from Walmart.
Exxon's profit not only comes from the shear volume of sales but they make a margin throughout the petroleum delivery chain. They spread their revenue across drilling, transportation, refining, pipeline traversal, wholesale, and finally retail.
More like Kubuntu now has another source of money and no longer has to adhere to any implied restrictions that Canonical may place on their money.
Except for the filing a false report charge...
I bet the TSA agent at the departing airport questioned the student when he/she went through the metal detectors and X-rays. The student probably explained what the gadget was and/or the agent found no explosive residue and let the student and his project on board the plane. When the student accidentally left the gadget on the plane at the arrival airport, a different set of agents boarded the plane and found a strange remote control device that was left behind. So they had to err on the side of caution.