This all hinges on the fact that Apple is supposed to be a hardware company. Nothing could be further from the truth. Apple sells an image, an/ideal/ to people. The idea they're selling is that they, as they so eloquently put it, think/different/ and if you buy their product so do you. So Apple is neither a hardware company nor is it a software company. Apple is a cult of personality, which sells pieces of itself. You become a customer of that ideal the moment you buy a piece of their personality.
The difference is that you could built it yourself given that you had the desire to learn how. Cavemen couldn't build the large caves they lived in, we can.
The patent specifically mentions conversion to and manipulation of the incoming signal via an MPEG formatted stream. Does this mean that devices that use another format for manipulating the streams, say Ogg/Vorbis/Theora, would not be infringing?
You are correct Simon in that itself is open source software. I was speaking only about parent post use of the term open source to refer to the HTK toolkit, when its license does not meet that definition.
Well, I have to correct myself on the trademark status of 'open source'. It seems that since it's 'descriptive' it can be abused, but there is still a compelling case for those in the know to avoid using it in this way and do all that we can to prevent it from becoming simply descriptive. 'Open Source' should be synonymous with freedom.
I'm sorry but I believe that the software world the term "Open Source" is a trademarked term that which when referring to a license or software work requires that the license or code adheres to the following definition:
Introduction Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.... {requirements 4-10 snipped}
-- The Open Source Definition, The Open Source Initiative (http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd)
This software's license most obviously violates requirements 1, 2, and 3. These are perhaps the most important provisions of the definition and form the basis for the power of calling a license an open source license. By not adhering to this definition when calling licenses and software "Open Source" you dilute the power the terms carries. Simply calling something 'open source' because they allow you to look at the source code is something we should avoid because 'Open Source' requires freedom not just source.
Well, I can't say how it compares to the examples you've mentioned but it appears to be a new approach. Repeated effort isn't always a bad thing, especially when new approaches are taken in solving old problems -- not to mention that, because it's open source and providing the licenses are compatible, everyone can benefit and that's the joy of open source/free software.
Well actually, the two examples you cite are very different uses of the software in question. In the Inkscape example you created something new that was not derivative of the Inkscape source code, so you could license that however you wanted in essentially the same way that every piece of software compiled with GCC does not have to be under the GNU GPL. Writing your own scheduler for the kernel, however, is a derivative work of the kernel, but because you did not distribute that outside of your organization (yourself or for your personal use essentially) you have no need to comply with the GPL which does not govern use. Be careful to separate using a tool to create new content, and creating new content from older content, because they are very different in terms of how copyright and licensing is applied -- the GPL is mostly (if not entirely) concerned with the ability to use and continue using distributed derivative work.
Yes, the use of quantum key distribution to enable the use of the OTP cypher is exactly what I was referring to. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear.
Well, in short they are going nuts because they simply can't do that. While quantum cryptographic analysis can break existing encryption methods that rely on factoring, new methods are being developed that are safe and secure. No system, however sophisticated, can crack the one time pad provided complete shannon security is maintained.
Problem is it doesn't work that way now, you do have a business relationship with them viz-a-viz your current provider. If I recall correctly, AT&T would have a contract with Verizon in your stead to cover access to their network for you. As a benefit both companies ensure that their customers are happy because they can contact one another, not to mention that united states federal regulations (iirc, this is certainly true for landline providers, don't know about wireless providers) require each company to sell each other commodity capacity on their networks. The internet currently works the same way, with peering points providing major backbone interchange capacity... it seems what they want to do is move from company-company agreements to user-company agreements, which of course burdens the user more for the same or worse service they had before... it's essentially passing the communications buck (both figuratively and literally).
I am in a room with my eyes closed. I can not see, I have no evidence that anything in the room exists -- therefore it must not. Yet when I open my eyes and gain evidence, there things exist. Did that which I am looking at now not exist when my eyes were closed or did it exist there all along? If it did, is my previous assertion that it must not exist because I have no evidence of its existence logically cohesive?
Hmmm, no wish to upset but if it starts in other countries no doubt the MPAA and RIAA will try it here (with the help of their favorite police depts, of course)
Slashdot Mirror
Nice! Does anyone know the name of the first song on the hour long video? That's a really nice chiptune.
All in good fun :)
root@SanityInAnarchy:~> modprobe -r pedantry root@SanityInAnarchy:~> modprobe humour
FATAL: Module humor not found.
root@SanityInAnarchy:~>apt-get install human-module-humor
This all hinges on the fact that Apple is supposed to be a hardware company. Nothing could be further from the truth. Apple sells an image, an /ideal/ to people. The idea they're selling is that they, as they so eloquently put it, think /different/ and if you buy their product so do you. So Apple is neither a hardware company nor is it a software company. Apple is a cult of personality, which sells pieces of itself. You become a customer of that ideal the moment you buy a piece of their personality.
The difference is that you could built it yourself given that you had the desire to learn how. Cavemen couldn't build the large caves they lived in, we can.
The patent specifically mentions conversion to and manipulation of the incoming signal via an MPEG formatted stream. Does this mean that devices that use another format for manipulating the streams, say Ogg/Vorbis/Theora, would not be infringing?
Mods please erase above comment. Link goes to site with hostile javascript, images.
You are correct Simon in that itself is open source software. I was speaking only about parent post use of the term open source to refer to the HTK toolkit, when its license does not meet that definition.
Well, I have to correct myself on the trademark status of 'open source'. It seems that since it's 'descriptive' it can be abused, but there is still a compelling case for those in the know to avoid using it in this way and do all that we can to prevent it from becoming simply descriptive. 'Open Source' should be synonymous with freedom.
I'm sorry but I believe that the software world the term "Open Source" is a trademarked term that which when referring to a license or software work requires that the license or code adheres to the following definition:
... {requirements 4-10 snipped}
Introduction
Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
-- The Open Source Definition, The Open Source Initiative (http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd)
This software's license most obviously violates requirements 1, 2, and 3. These are perhaps the most important provisions of the definition and form the basis for the power of calling a license an open source license. By not adhering to this definition when calling licenses and software "Open Source" you dilute the power the terms carries. Simply calling something 'open source' because they allow you to look at the source code is something we should avoid because 'Open Source' requires freedom not just source.
Well, I can't say how it compares to the examples you've mentioned but it appears to be a new approach. Repeated effort isn't always a bad thing, especially when new approaches are taken in solving old problems -- not to mention that, because it's open source and providing the licenses are compatible, everyone can benefit and that's the joy of open source/free software.
Well actually, the two examples you cite are very different uses of the software in question. In the Inkscape example you created something new that was not derivative of the Inkscape source code, so you could license that however you wanted in essentially the same way that every piece of software compiled with GCC does not have to be under the GNU GPL. Writing your own scheduler for the kernel, however, is a derivative work of the kernel, but because you did not distribute that outside of your organization (yourself or for your personal use essentially) you have no need to comply with the GPL which does not govern use. Be careful to separate using a tool to create new content, and creating new content from older content, because they are very different in terms of how copyright and licensing is applied -- the GPL is mostly (if not entirely) concerned with the ability to use and continue using distributed derivative work.
"Through the patented gMagic process, we turn forward time for you. Never wait for anything, including your massively detailed search results, again!"
Yes, the use of quantum key distribution to enable the use of the OTP cypher is exactly what I was referring to. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear.
or rather, aren't going nuts .. heh, preview is your friend... :)
Well, in short they are going nuts because they simply can't do that. While quantum cryptographic analysis can break existing encryption methods that rely on factoring, new methods are being developed that are safe and secure. No system, however sophisticated, can crack the one time pad provided complete shannon security is maintained.
Problem is it doesn't work that way now, you do have a business relationship with them viz-a-viz your current provider. If I recall correctly, AT&T would have a contract with Verizon in your stead to cover access to their network for you. As a benefit both companies ensure that their customers are happy because they can contact one another, not to mention that united states federal regulations (iirc, this is certainly true for landline providers, don't know about wireless providers) require each company to sell each other commodity capacity on their networks. The internet currently works the same way, with peering points providing major backbone interchange capacity... it seems what they want to do is move from company-company agreements to user-company agreements, which of course burdens the user more for the same or worse service they had before... it's essentially passing the communications buck (both figuratively and literally).
I am in a room with my eyes closed. I can not see, I have no evidence that anything in the room exists -- therefore it must not. Yet when I open my eyes and gain evidence, there things exist. Did that which I am looking at now not exist when my eyes were closed or did it exist there all along? If it did, is my previous assertion that it must not exist because I have no evidence of its existence logically cohesive?
Dude, easy... just go to amazon.com. I'm pretty sure they stock those.
Hmmm, no wish to upset but if it starts in other countries no doubt the MPAA and RIAA will try it here (with the help of their favorite police depts, of course)