If the group of friends formed a company just for the purpose of releasing software, then there's no problem at all with using the same signature. Of course, the cost of registering a company might outweigh the $99/dev cost from Apple, but for a large enough group releasing several apps per year it'd work out cheaper.
While some developers will work around Apple's $99 certification, why would users install uncertified apps? It's the quickest way to get your iPhone hacked.
Sure, most developers will be honestly making good apps and source would be available, but source code can be obscured - it provides little or no security to the majority of users. When a user has some media, a few documents, lots of contacts and who knows what else on their phone, they'll be wary of potential hackery.
My feeling is that non-Apple distribution will be shunned by the majority of users, which is sad but more likely than an open-source explosion of iPhone goodness.
That's so true, except for the bit about complete control. I think the iPhone does most video content and web content, but hey, apparently every website on Earth without Adobe's Flash is under Apple's control.
Someone better tell those YouTube guys they're working for Apple. It's the sort of thing they should know.
I'm pretty sure there are extradition treaties between EU members and the US. It wouldn't be too hard to drag Microsoft directors kicking and screaming to the EU.
Non-payment is not an option here, and neither is pulling out of the EU or not selling to EU governments (a shareholder lawsuit would crucify the BOD for the last two). That leaves no choice, which is the way it should be for businesses who break laws.
Giving a patent holder a billion dollars to buy their patent will encourage patent trolls to come out in force. The government's giving away billions here, why not give it a go? You can patent something obvious, sue the banks and donate to the political parties. Soon enough someone will buy you out, and you get to retire a very wealthy person!
Sure, it may not work out so easily, but what's to stop anyone from trying?
No, the problem with Linux is that it's decentralised and developers are working all over the place doing whatever bits they want to do. It's a strength, but also a weakness.
Linux is a lot better than ever before, but some sort of focused development would solve a lot of the problems people complain about. Sadly there's no-one ponying up the dough so we're largely back to people doing whatever they feel like.
You quoted the parent out of context. The parent said:
"While there may be some wriggle room for any lawyer in there, the document states in pretty clear terms what its intent is"
while you quoted only:
"there may be some wriggle room for any lawyer in there"
The parent was clearly saying that as far as legal documents go, the GPL is generally not ambiguous, but that's not to say it's got no room at all for debate.
Show me an unambiguous legal document and I'll show you a lawyer who will make it ambiguous.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone here, but as I trawled this thread your misquoting jumped out at me.
I lurked for years as well, but the best I could've had would be a 200k-series UID. Nowhere near enough to qualify as a greybeard.
Nothing brings out the ancient ones faster than making a joke about UIDs. Is there some sort of secret thread filter they get that highlights these or emails a message?
I wish Apple would provide a way to roll back updates. The current method involved reinstalling the entire system and all the patches up to the point you want.
It's just sad, especially with Apple's great little package management system.
Not that people often need to roll updates back, but there've been a few killers in the past (the QuickTime update recently that disrupted a video-editing app) that would be great to roll back.
Another point for Linux. Hell, even Windows beats OS X on this point.
Both Vista and OS X have stable APIs for hardware drivers to code to. The diversity of hardware in Vista's favour should be less relevant, except in the sense that the hardware companies have to release Vista versions of their drivers.
The testing of labs full of different hardware is nice, but it looks more that you're regression testing hardware drivers and not Vista itself.
I do agree with the point that it's probably only a handful of users experiencing problems, but they're very vocal.
The issue is that the work is copied and sold many times, which is unlike most other businesses.
When a book is published or a song is sold, who should get the artist's royalties after a short copyright expires? You know it'll just go into the publisher's pocket, even though we'd hope there might be a small price drop.
I'd also argue that the amount of money available to spend on art is fixed. As time passes, more money enters the economy and, separately, more art is produced. The 'budget' for art is a moving amount in a normal economy.
How could she remove the data from the laptop when it wouldn't power on?
Not everyone is technical enough to crack a laptop open and yank the drive, and not every laptop facilitates that sort of thing with easy-to-access drives. When there's a fault, many people don't want to do this sort of thing anyway.
If the original author is dead, who exactly is harmed by this?
The author. Yes, that person is dead and no, I'm not going to invoke religion. The author's reputation can be harmed by following works that may change the way the original is perceived.
Secondly, if the author creates a work that earns money where should that money go after his or her death? Without copyright it'll go straight into the publisher's pocket. Is that more reasonable than seeing the money go to wherever the author nominated?
I'd argue a shorter period of copyright to follow the death of the author. Not seventy years, but perhaps ten or twenty years. Long enough for any remaining benefits to be realised but not so long that descendants can use this as a dependable source of income.
I'm sure Alexander Borodin would cringe at "Stranger in Paradise"
I know what you're trying to say here, but Borodin died in 1887 and that song was recorded in 1953, a gap of 66 years. I don't think the copyright laws of the day would've extended that long, and it's well past the point I'd argue copyright should apply.
It's good in the sense that lazy devs may hold up one core, but a modern OS should be fine with the other cores. Users should see no effective difference (unless they're doing computationally expensive tasks as well as their browsing).
It's bad in the sense that it encourages laziness in devs. I'd argue that modern processor speeds and the abundance of memory encourage similar laziness, but there you go. We're down to subjectivity here and my opinion is one of many.
There's probably also some benefit from the greater number of registers, maybe through register aliasing. I can't imagine AMD would leave registers sitting idle.
Slashdot Mirror
Netscape was the first to give away their browser.
No, Netscape charged for their browser. I paid AUS$40 for the boxed version in the early 90s. I wasn't a student or non-profit organisation though.
You kids! We bought browsers in boxes at the software store in the olden days.
But what's wrong with pre-installing a bunch of browsers, or letting vendors decide?
If the group of friends formed a company just for the purpose of releasing software, then there's no problem at all with using the same signature. Of course, the cost of registering a company might outweigh the $99/dev cost from Apple, but for a large enough group releasing several apps per year it'd work out cheaper.
While some developers will work around Apple's $99 certification, why would users install uncertified apps? It's the quickest way to get your iPhone hacked.
Sure, most developers will be honestly making good apps and source would be available, but source code can be obscured - it provides little or no security to the majority of users. When a user has some media, a few documents, lots of contacts and who knows what else on their phone, they'll be wary of potential hackery.
My feeling is that non-Apple distribution will be shunned by the majority of users, which is sad but more likely than an open-source explosion of iPhone goodness.
That's so true, except for the bit about complete control. I think the iPhone does most video content and web content, but hey, apparently every website on Earth without Adobe's Flash is under Apple's control.
Someone better tell those YouTube guys they're working for Apple. It's the sort of thing they should know.
A "poultry" fine?
A couple of eggs, some drumsticks...
(sorry, couldn't resist)
I'm pretty sure there are extradition treaties between EU members and the US. It wouldn't be too hard to drag Microsoft directors kicking and screaming to the EU.
Non-payment is not an option here, and neither is pulling out of the EU or not selling to EU governments (a shareholder lawsuit would crucify the BOD for the last two). That leaves no choice, which is the way it should be for businesses who break laws.
It's funny how that argument never occurred to Microsoft's army of lawyers during their many anti-trust trials.
If only they could have put it forward, they'd have short-circuited the whole process.
Sadly they're just not that smart. Microsoft really need to look into their hiring practices.
It'll be so good, it'll do ROT13 twice!
Sure, sure, what else would Obi Wan Kenobi say? I call bias!
(kidding!)
... and it's not pretty.
Giving a patent holder a billion dollars to buy their patent will encourage patent trolls to come out in force. The government's giving away billions here, why not give it a go? You can patent something obvious, sue the banks and donate to the political parties. Soon enough someone will buy you out, and you get to retire a very wealthy person!
Sure, it may not work out so easily, but what's to stop anyone from trying?
No, the problem with Linux is that it's decentralised and developers are working all over the place doing whatever bits they want to do. It's a strength, but also a weakness.
Linux is a lot better than ever before, but some sort of focused development would solve a lot of the problems people complain about. Sadly there's no-one ponying up the dough so we're largely back to people doing whatever they feel like.
You quoted the parent out of context. The parent said:
"While there may be some wriggle room for any lawyer in there, the document states in pretty clear terms what its intent is"
while you quoted only:
"there may be some wriggle room for any lawyer in there"
The parent was clearly saying that as far as legal documents go, the GPL is generally not ambiguous, but that's not to say it's got no room at all for debate.
Show me an unambiguous legal document and I'll show you a lawyer who will make it ambiguous.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone here, but as I trawled this thread your misquoting jumped out at me.
I lurked for years as well, but the best I could've had would be a 200k-series UID. Nowhere near enough to qualify as a greybeard.
Nothing brings out the ancient ones faster than making a joke about UIDs. Is there some sort of secret thread filter they get that highlights these or emails a message?
I wish Apple would provide a way to roll back updates. The current method involved reinstalling the entire system and all the patches up to the point you want.
It's just sad, especially with Apple's great little package management system.
Not that people often need to roll updates back, but there've been a few killers in the past (the QuickTime update recently that disrupted a video-editing app) that would be great to roll back.
Another point for Linux. Hell, even Windows beats OS X on this point.
I always wonder about this argument.
Both Vista and OS X have stable APIs for hardware drivers to code to. The diversity of hardware in Vista's favour should be less relevant, except in the sense that the hardware companies have to release Vista versions of their drivers.
The testing of labs full of different hardware is nice, but it looks more that you're regression testing hardware drivers and not Vista itself.
I do agree with the point that it's probably only a handful of users experiencing problems, but they're very vocal.
The issue is that the work is copied and sold many times, which is unlike most other businesses.
When a book is published or a song is sold, who should get the artist's royalties after a short copyright expires? You know it'll just go into the publisher's pocket, even though we'd hope there might be a small price drop.
I'd also argue that the amount of money available to spend on art is fixed. As time passes, more money enters the economy and, separately, more art is produced. The 'budget' for art is a moving amount in a normal economy.
If a piece of music is still being bought, why shouldn't the one-hit wonder artist who wrote it seventy years earlier get a portion of the sale price?
Who should get the money instead? The music company? They'd love that!
I know where you're coming from, but how do non-technical people know this sort of stuff?
Who knows to encrypt their hard drive, or to get the drive removed before taking it to a service centre? This isn't obvious knowledge.
How could she remove the data from the laptop when it wouldn't power on?
Not everyone is technical enough to crack a laptop open and yank the drive, and not every laptop facilitates that sort of thing with easy-to-access drives. When there's a fault, many people don't want to do this sort of thing anyway.
If the original author is dead, who exactly is harmed by this?
The author. Yes, that person is dead and no, I'm not going to invoke religion. The author's reputation can be harmed by following works that may change the way the original is perceived.
Secondly, if the author creates a work that earns money where should that money go after his or her death? Without copyright it'll go straight into the publisher's pocket. Is that more reasonable than seeing the money go to wherever the author nominated?
I'd argue a shorter period of copyright to follow the death of the author. Not seventy years, but perhaps ten or twenty years. Long enough for any remaining benefits to be realised but not so long that descendants can use this as a dependable source of income.
I'm sure Alexander Borodin would cringe at "Stranger in Paradise"
I know what you're trying to say here, but Borodin died in 1887 and that song was recorded in 1953, a gap of 66 years. I don't think the copyright laws of the day would've extended that long, and it's well past the point I'd argue copyright should apply.
Curses! I hate it when people argue their point better than I do.
I see your point and you've reduced my point to a semantic thing, not worth debating. I have to yield.
OS X is priced as an upgrade. The installer on retail discs doesn't act as an upgrade but the pricing is consistent with an upgrade.
That's good and bad.
It's good in the sense that lazy devs may hold up one core, but a modern OS should be fine with the other cores. Users should see no effective difference (unless they're doing computationally expensive tasks as well as their browsing).
It's bad in the sense that it encourages laziness in devs. I'd argue that modern processor speeds and the abundance of memory encourage similar laziness, but there you go. We're down to subjectivity here and my opinion is one of many.
There's probably also some benefit from the greater number of registers, maybe through register aliasing. I can't imagine AMD would leave registers sitting idle.
You confuse open with free. Both are great, but only the first one is important.
A standard is open for everyone to implement. ISO doesn't discriminate on who it provides copies to.