When I was working for Be Inc. as a tech support guy, my co-worker developed a 3com 3c509 driver based on Donald Becker's GPL Linux driver. BeOS users suddenly had something very useful, a driver working in BeOS that thought it was talking to a Linux kernel, but the wrapper made it interface with the BeOS network server. Anyway, long story short, the GPL is viral, as Be Inc. started to receive emails from the FSF about the driver download. Apparently Be Inc. would have to GPL the BeOS kernel to use the driver, or that was according to the Be Inc. legal dept that forced us to take down the driver+wrapper kit. I read the email exchange, and RMS himself was involved in the process. So point one is apparently the authors attempt to change history or something, not sure. Fact is the GPL-left version was designed to work-around the viral aspects of the license, so you can link to gpl libraries, etc... to not have to be gpl yourself (the code linking into gpl lib's).
In response to the 3rd point, about the price of GPL-ware, and freedom. Let me be clear, the GPL is a license, which outlines restrictions. The word restriction, and freedom seem almost mutually exclusive except in terms of establishing the contrast of each other. Aka the provision is the GPL about how you MUST provide the greedy original author with your cool enhancements is a restriction of the GPL, not a freedom it provides. The price of the GPL is a non-issue, as I just showed how the gpl is not free, as in freedom, and the author of point three points out that the GPL does not guarantee free as in "free lunch, free beer" (aka price).
Point 9 is funny. When BSD code is assimilated into the GPL I notice that the BSD clause of always attributing the author is mostly ignored, and even replaced (many times) with the GPL-ware authors name. So complaining about not having the entire GPL license in each and every file header is a joke. Of course this is a case by case situation, but really, the common case is that the GPL licensed project typically has a person who takes other peoples enhancements, by force of license, and represents them as their own without attributing the original (patch) work to the contributing author.
People, there is a better way for you to contribute code to the world. The BSD way! In short, and without starting a bikeshed flame war, the BSD way doesn't care about restricting you by the license, except to not steal the fame for the code, aka give credit to who you accept BSD licensed code in your project, and who cares if you are commercial project, or philanthropic. Freedom should always win over greed.
This reminds me of that old saying. Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance. Clearly if somebody thinks google is evil because it is compensating for misspelling... lol.... they need less free time.
When a developer goes OSS, one of the common motivations is to foster the creation of a community around the project, and I'd say lifting the development burden is secondary while a very nice side effect. So when the community doesn't materialize, or meet the expectations of the principle creator, then it is full justifiable to an alternative project model take shape.
Not to seem rude, but you write like a self-serving ego centric user, and we developers don't have to please you. You are the lowest form of life in the cycle. If you were to contribute to the project, instead of expecting it to roll forward without any contributions, then you pretty much have no voice. This is kinda like bitching about politics and not registering to vote.
Rationalizing the move from OSS to closed source in terms of what is good for the species scares me. Please stop thinking in such absolute terms, and besides you wrong anyways.
This would mean Vonaged would have to support an uber sip server that was aware of the 3rd party voip node. Vonage's infrastructure doesn't support that for obvious reasons, mainly they are a business, and not a free IM/chat service like google-talk.
You're correct about most everything you wrote, but I take exception about the bits about the 127 bit CSS systems. They were, in fact thought of at the time, and rejected by the consortium. The DVD format was finalized before Clinton lifted the export ban on crypto. Even though, DVD-john was capable of extracting a version of the key from a software product in a country that allows for reverse engineering. =)
The notion still works in the sense of hardware play back devices, no? We already have MP3 players, so in this context we have nothing to worry about.
I'm worried about the next generation audio formats, which I suspect will be encumbered with some for of DRM scramble on the medium, especially when I speculate about blu-ray, and all of Sony's content in audio or video forms.
If you produce music, and you for whatever reason destroy your original works, then you are responsible and liable for that, not the playback device. If you have the notion that the playback device is you backup, then you are at fault for having a wrong notion. Certainly you (the copyright holder) are capable of allowing yourself as many instances of the work as it is your property, but access to the instance on the playback device is a property of the devices capability. So when you purchase the device you buy into the capabilities how ever limiting intentional or not. in respect of the playback device, that being the clear intention of the device, does not have to be a mass storage device or backup medium. However, I see your notion of it being an incidental backup medium, which I suppose is supported by your incorrect notions that play back devices serve that function. Show me a product advertised as a music playback device, which is also explicitly advertised as a backup method.
Think long and hard about that. What rights do you have in terms of copying things around? What rights do the content owners have in terms of you copying the content around?
Your perseption, or belifie system might be interfearing with your understanding of certian realities of copyright law.
To answer, you are given a limited license to the content, and your rights are restricted to the number of licenses you own for the content. This provides you with the consept of an instance of the content, and typically you are afforded one instance per license, and one backup.
You are not limited what you can do with YOUR device (you can stick it up your butt for all we care), but you are limited with what you can do with the software (music) on the device.
You are ignoring the fact that the content is put to DRM upon input to the device. This notion assums you have the content in an open format prior to input/storage on the play-back device. If Sony goes belly up, nothing stops you to continue to playback the content, or input new content.
I don't copy purchased CD's except to create personal copies for the car and the beach (cuz CD's are hardly indestructable, and catalogs don't stay in print forever).
This is not against the law, if that is what you are alluding to? You have the fair use clause protection. You can make a bit-for-bit duplication of any digital information, or wave-for-waveform copy of analog media. As long as it is for your own fair use.
And of course certain DRM'ed CD's wont play on certain CD players at all. How swell is that?
About as swell as software that only works on Linux, or OSX, or Win32. You have to apply the same test to all forms of distribution, which you are not. Consumers are already swell with this situation to some extent. Content distribution, and computing is starting to get blurry, and that media playback device is not analog anymore, it is a microprocessor device, aka proprietary computer.
ALL DRM does is angers law abiding consumers by making their purchase less valuable to them.
I cannot dispute this because you are correct. However, DRM can be transparent in the sense that it happens upon input to the device, and output from the device is digital-to-analog converted to your ears. At least this notion hold true in that you are purchasing CD's, and moving them to the Sony device. Not so much for direct download to device content.
It is a crude go at DRM, and almost worked. See at one point in time, strong crypto was considered a export controlled munitions in the USA. There for the DVD consortium was not able to utilize 127-bit protection on the content. So they used a dual 64 bit system, which DVD-Jon was able to crack, or otherwise fan-out about. Anyways, the key distribution is done in the hardware. Proxy of purchase of the device does not give you the key. Getting access to that key, or key-sets would violate the DMCA, and there are layers of keys involved when considering DRM.
So your argument is flawed in that way, because you cannot have the key, and with more advanced encryption formats, your ability to attack would be diminished.
You should also realize that the music industry is changing formats to audio-DVD, and Sony will probably convert their distribution to blu-ray, which will utilize DRM for content protection, and be covered by an industry consortium to protect the hardware keys.
It comes down to this: DRM to protect the contents, or laws to protect the contents. What would you rather have? DRM is the lesser of two evils. You certainly don't want your existing rights diminished, so the industry will have to change. The industry is changing, so deal with it.
In fact, if they didn't, the coorporation as a whole could be found guilty in civil court for lack of due diligence. BEsides, storing the mp3 format encrypted doesn't change the music. It is your music, and in theory you can still access it. Especially considering the scheam has been cracked. Here is the real problem, you cannot get good performance with good encryption on embeded processors.
Hardly, the process DRM'izing could be transparent. the device would do it on your behalf on input, and as long as it plays mp3's ; why do you care how they are stored on the device?
DRM is the only answer to protecting Sony's own copyrights, as they have the rights to a lot of music distribution already. What is the alternative? More laws like the FCC Broadcast flag? That is jumping from the kettle to the fire. No, DRM, encryption is the way out. You have your music, in the form of a secure DRM'ized backup. You retain the rights to your original CD audio. What is the big deal here? Oh I get it, your upset you cannot engage in illegal activity, right?
One good way woudl be to not trade any type of audio/visual stuff... just fetchyou rlatest linux distro, or whatever software. For me torrents are only used when everybody is stressingthe download servers, and mirrors, so this is where bittorrent shines.
Slashdot Mirror
interesting.
So then, it seems that p2p firewall rules may come to be. I mean synchronized rules between nodes.
Always assume your input is an arbitrary location and length of pi. *joking*
This is why assuming a datatype, even the ones advertised as constant, or immutable (strongly typed), are bad.
I might be missing some DBA jargon here though, about schema types, instead of language.
Not only does Yahoo servers run FreeBSD, Yahoo has core developers on it's pay role, and hosts the main WWW for FreeBSD.
When I was working for Be Inc. as a tech support guy, my co-worker developed a 3com 3c509 driver based on Donald Becker's GPL Linux driver. BeOS users suddenly had something very useful, a driver working in BeOS that thought it was talking to a Linux kernel, but the wrapper made it interface with the BeOS network server. Anyway, long story short, the GPL is viral, as Be Inc. started to receive emails from the FSF about the driver download. Apparently Be Inc. would have to GPL the BeOS kernel to use the driver, or that was according to the Be Inc. legal dept that forced us to take down the driver+wrapper kit. I read the email exchange, and RMS himself was involved in the process. So point one is apparently the authors attempt to change history or something, not sure. Fact is the GPL-left version was designed to work-around the viral aspects of the license, so you can link to gpl libraries, etc... to not have to be gpl yourself (the code linking into gpl lib's).
In response to the 3rd point, about the price of GPL-ware, and freedom. Let me be clear, the GPL is a license, which outlines restrictions. The word restriction, and freedom seem almost mutually exclusive except in terms of establishing the contrast of each other. Aka the provision is the GPL about how you MUST provide the greedy original author with your cool enhancements is a restriction of the GPL, not a freedom it provides. The price of the GPL is a non-issue, as I just showed how the gpl is not free, as in freedom, and the author of point three points out that the GPL does not guarantee free as in "free lunch, free beer" (aka price).
Point 9 is funny. When BSD code is assimilated into the GPL I notice that the BSD clause of always attributing the author is mostly ignored, and even replaced (many times) with the GPL-ware authors name. So complaining about not having the entire GPL license in each and every file header is a joke. Of course this is a case by case situation, but really, the common case is that the GPL licensed project typically has a person who takes other peoples enhancements, by force of license, and represents them as their own without attributing the original (patch) work to the contributing author.
People, there is a better way for you to contribute code to the world. The BSD way! In short, and without starting a bikeshed flame war, the BSD way doesn't care about restricting you by the license, except to not steal the fame for the code, aka give credit to who you accept BSD licensed code in your project, and who cares if you are commercial project, or philanthropic. Freedom should always win over greed.
but this italics means Cnet is the ones who would be, not slashdot.
the raw link is here:1 058,+18.1793241944++(bosnian+pyramid)&ll=43.980093 ,18.179283&spn=0.040269,0.10849&t=h&om=1
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=43.980073
You can clearly see the edges of the big thing.
Seems quite clear to me that I'm looking at a shrub covered geometric shape.
decide for your self. enjoy
Palm purchased the BeOS back in the old days.
Be Inc. Attempted to sell to Apple at one point, and then Next happened.
Now it comes full circle, but really if this rumor is true I doubt the software parts of Palm are interesting to Apple.
Just a thought.
This reminds me of that old saying. Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance. Clearly if somebody thinks google is evil because it is compensating for misspelling... lol.... they need less free time.
I'm pretty sure that he wrote the screenplay for that underwater movie called "the abyse", which was quite good.
When a developer goes OSS, one of the common motivations is to foster the creation of a community around the project, and I'd say lifting the development burden is secondary while a very nice side effect. So when the community doesn't materialize, or meet the expectations of the principle creator, then it is full justifiable to an alternative project model take shape.
Not to seem rude, but you write like a self-serving ego centric user, and we developers don't have to please you. You are the lowest form of life in the cycle. If you were to contribute to the project, instead of expecting it to roll forward without any contributions, then you pretty much have no voice. This is kinda like bitching about politics and not registering to vote.
Rationalizing the move from OSS to closed source in terms of what is good for the species scares me. Please stop thinking in such absolute terms, and besides you wrong anyways.
Good day,
-J
This would mean Vonaged would have to support an uber sip server that was aware of the 3rd party voip node. Vonage's infrastructure doesn't support that for obvious reasons, mainly they are a business, and not a free IM/chat service like google-talk.
It was BETAMAX dipshit!
VHS was still under development in panasonics labs by then.
ahem.....
So you can either "bend over and take it like a [BITCH] man", or stand up for your rights[LIKE A MAN].
Not sure where you come from, but bending over and taking it like a man seems kinda gay and bad advice.
Does swimming in the literal, or technical sense, apply to bording a cruise ship, and staying immersed in liquid for the entire venture?
Just currious.
*smirk*
You're correct about most everything you wrote, but I take exception about the bits about the 127 bit CSS systems. They were, in fact thought of at the time, and rejected by the consortium. The DVD format was finalized before Clinton lifted the export ban on crypto. Even though, DVD-john was capable of extracting a version of the key from a software product in a country that allows for reverse engineering. =)
The notion still works in the sense of hardware play back devices, no? We already have MP3 players, so in this context we have nothing to worry about.
I'm worried about the next generation audio formats, which I suspect will be encumbered with some for of DRM scramble on the medium, especially when I speculate about blu-ray, and all of Sony's content in audio or video forms.
Thanks for the sane reply. ++ kudos
Yes, that is true, but so what?
This is not a backup medium, it is a playback device.
If you produce music, and you for whatever reason destroy your original works, then you are responsible and liable for that, not the playback device. If you have the notion that the playback device is you backup, then you are at fault for having a wrong notion. Certainly you (the copyright holder) are capable of allowing yourself as many instances of the work as it is your property, but access to the instance on the playback device is a property of the devices capability. So when you purchase the device you buy into the capabilities how ever limiting intentional or not. in respect of the playback device, that being the clear intention of the device, does not have to be a mass storage device or backup medium. However, I see your notion of it being an incidental backup medium, which I suppose is supported by your incorrect notions that play back devices serve that function. Show me a product advertised as a music playback device, which is also explicitly advertised as a backup method.
Ahem....
COPY + RIGHT
Think long and hard about that. What rights do you have in terms of copying things around? What rights do the content owners have in terms of you copying the content around?
Your perseption, or belifie system might be interfearing with your understanding of certian realities of copyright law.
To answer, you are given a limited license to the content, and your rights are restricted to the number of licenses you own for the content. This provides you with the consept of an instance of the content, and typically you are afforded one instance per license, and one backup.
You are not limited what you can do with YOUR device (you can stick it up your butt for all we care), but you are limited with what you can do with the software (music) on the device.
You are ignoring the fact that the content is put to DRM upon input to the device. This notion assums you have the content in an open format prior to input/storage on the play-back device. If Sony goes belly up, nothing stops you to continue to playback the content, or input new content.
I don't copy purchased CD's except to create personal copies for the car and the beach (cuz CD's are hardly indestructable, and catalogs don't stay in print forever).
This is not against the law, if that is what you are alluding to? You have the fair use clause protection. You can make a bit-for-bit duplication of any digital information, or wave-for-waveform copy of analog media. As long as it is for your own fair use.
And of course certain DRM'ed CD's wont play on certain CD players at all. How swell is that?
About as swell as software that only works on Linux, or OSX, or Win32. You have to apply the same test to all forms of distribution, which you are not. Consumers are already swell with this situation to some extent. Content distribution, and computing is starting to get blurry, and that media playback device is not analog anymore, it is a microprocessor device, aka proprietary computer.
ALL DRM does is angers law abiding consumers by making their purchase less valuable to them.
I cannot dispute this because you are correct. However, DRM can be transparent in the sense that it happens upon input to the device, and output from the device is digital-to-analog converted to your ears. At least this notion hold true in that you are purchasing CD's, and moving them to the Sony device. Not so much for direct download to device content.
Are you aware of how DVD's protect their content?
It is a crude go at DRM, and almost worked. See at one point in time, strong crypto was considered a export controlled munitions in the USA. There for the DVD consortium was not able to utilize 127-bit protection on the content. So they used a dual 64 bit system, which DVD-Jon was able to crack, or otherwise fan-out about. Anyways, the key distribution is done in the hardware. Proxy of purchase of the device does not give you the key. Getting access to that key, or key-sets would violate the DMCA, and there are layers of keys involved when considering DRM.
So your argument is flawed in that way, because you cannot have the key, and with more advanced encryption formats, your ability to attack would be diminished.
You should also realize that the music industry is changing formats to audio-DVD, and Sony will probably convert their distribution to blu-ray, which will utilize DRM for content protection, and be covered by an industry consortium to protect the hardware keys.
It comes down to this: DRM to protect the contents, or laws to protect the contents. What would you rather have? DRM is the lesser of two evils. You certainly don't want your existing rights diminished, so the industry will have to change. The industry is changing, so deal with it.
Exatly.
In fact, if they didn't, the coorporation as a whole could be found guilty in civil court for lack of due diligence. BEsides, storing the mp3 format encrypted doesn't change the music. It is your music, and in theory you can still access it. Especially considering the scheam has been cracked. Here is the real problem, you cannot get good performance with good encryption on embeded processors.
Hardly, the process DRM'izing could be transparent. the device would do it on your behalf on input, and as long as it plays mp3's ; why do you care how they are stored on the device?
DRM is the only answer to protecting Sony's own copyrights, as they have the rights to a lot of music distribution already. What is the alternative? More laws like the FCC Broadcast flag? That is jumping from the kettle to the fire. No, DRM, encryption is the way out. You have your music, in the form of a secure DRM'ized backup. You retain the rights to your original CD audio. What is the big deal here? Oh I get it, your upset you cannot engage in illegal activity, right?
One good way woudl be to not trade any type of audio/visual stuff... just fetchyou rlatest linux distro, or whatever software. For me torrents are only used when everybody is stressingthe download servers, and mirrors, so this is where bittorrent shines.