The company filed a nonsense obvious patent. The examiner was overworked and didn't understand it anyway, tossed a coin and it was heads, passed the patent. Company gets lucky and tries to sue everyone.
America, America, America. I'm afraid you all have to stay behind after school.
If I got an American passport so I could make more money, but refused to learn or speak English, refused to use any of your cultural institutions, shops, etc. Refused to learn the anthem or talk to any American outside work.
The problem with DRM is that it is a narrow technical solution to an wide ranging, largely non-technical, problem.
There's a clear economic message here - can you see it yet? When the cost of breaking DRM is higher than the profit to be made, DRM wins. It doesn't have to be perfect.
Well it allows DRM vendors to sell DRM systems. The technical difficulty of breaking DRM has to be higher than the average executive at a record company.
However, there are at least four aspects to the problems for DRM to actually work as you have described, i.e. as 'resistance' that stops the kids from copying enough for them to get on the bus, queue at a checkout and go home again. 1. Politics: The majority of people don't believe in the propaganda of the content industries. Even those that think they do, don't appear able to act on their beliefs. 2. Communication: You only have to break it once, then the means of circumvention can be spread at the speed of Ethernet. 3. Physics: It is harder and slower to build and deploy restrictions than destroy them. 4. Sociology: The productivity of a grown-up working in an office with paperwork, clocking out at 5, family commitments etc, is far lower than some dedicated student working 24 hours per day to get their Blue-ray player to 'work'.
TFA: The 777 model, which entered commercial service in 1995, relies heavily on computers, so one area for examination is whether the software functioned properly.
If it is a software problem, then expect more public scrutiny of software based machinery. Especially after the US Senate vs UK debacle over the source code for the new joint-combat fighter.
Your argument is strong, and I have bookmarked it and will think about it some more.
At the moment making Windows ports does not fit well into my developer set-up. Most of the coolest stuff I do is as a hobby (they only pay for the dull stuff), and in one sense software is never complete, so doing an hour here and an hour there is easy on my normal computing platform.
However, having to find enough time to sit down at a windows box (not my normal or preferred setup) and sort out all the installers is unlikely at this point. Maybe I could setup a Virtual Machine and it would be easier.
Whether or not you acknowledge or believe it, the Windows platform is full of developers, testers and savvy end users. Just because Windows OS isn't free or open, doesn't mean its applications or users need to be locked out from OSS.
But at the end of the day, the Windows users need to make the Windows installers. It is not that they are locked out, but they are too busy making shareware or whatever it is they do. And when people get heavily into the open source, then they often move to Linux anyhow.
ooOOooOOooOoo a whole day hey ! Compared to the millennium it took to create the b*stard app.
In the open source world, the situation is often that you write an application because you have the need for it. Therefore working on the application for the millennium is fun, because you are doing it on the operating system you like and because you gain a useful application.
The problem is that a lot of open source programmers are on Linux or some other non-Windows OS. So we know (or care) very little about Windows. Getting the pipeline setup so it generates the Windows executables is actually long and dull if you personally have nothing to gain from it. Almost none of the software I have made has a Windows port, and the only one that has is because I was paid to do it for Windows.
So for some of my programs, by releasing a Windows port I could potentially increase the userbase by 2000%. However, that does not help me personally.
Some of the programs I work on are because there are none for Linux. Now I could release a Windows port, and it will be as powerful as the very expensive Windows programs that it replaces, but it would not help me personally.
Sure, up the numbers as appropriate for whatever the mystery app actually is.
And updated. And accurate. And legal.
In this case there is probably a better model. The application is open source but you pay for this year's data. For example, there is a company in my town that sells an open-source payroll, the government rules change every year so if you have a big firm then you probably want to pay for the template data that you preload rather than doing it all from completely scratch.
It sounds like to me that everything turned out beautifully. Remember, my idea is that those who are willing to pay end up paying, while those who were never willing to pay get the software anyway.
You were not willing to pay but you were willing to do some extra legwork Googling and you were rewarded for your legwork.
They claimed that making a Windows build was "hard" somehow,
It is actually quite hard in the sense that most open source programmers are on Linux or some other non-Windows OS. So we know (or care) very little about Windows. Therefore getting the pipeline setup so it generates the Windows executables (as you point out) is actually long and dull if you personally have nothing to gain from it.
So there are three solutions: * the software never makes it to Windows. * Windows users pay for the binaries * a Windows user steps up to the plate and takes responsibility for the Windows binaries
The third is obviously best but it rarely happens, so the second is actually better than the first because at least the Windows binaries exists (al be it at cost). Sadly, the majority of open-source software is in the first case.
Well I think the site maintainers gage the popularity of various topics by how many comments there are. So you have effectively just voted for this story twice!
P.S. I think it is quite a relevant story to a lot of people here.
long it would take for someone to set up a "$YOURAPP Windows Installers" site
Do you know how long it takes to make Windows installers for software, I mean it is very boring work, that is why a lot of open source has no Windows installers. Open Source software usually requires packaging up lots of dependencies into a single EXE. Unless you are really hot, we are talking like a whole day's work for a simple application.
Well you can't really stop people putting on pirate bay either. However, people who are willing to pay will pay, and those that are not willing to pay will not.
If you are a business and you are buying the application then you will be happy to get it from the original author.
> And how long till that site is better known, higher in google and generating more ad revenue.
I really don't think it will be. It will be some corner that only people with lots of time will find, these people will not have bought it anyway.
I think the idea is bad for other reasons. However, in this situation, I suppose one could either demand joint copyright assignment so you can upstream the changes or if the code is really good share the revenue with the patch author.
I can't tell from TFA whether the "financial application" is a server or desktop application. Assuming it is a desktop application then I would point out that open source code does not have to mean open binaries.
Try to separate your markets. If you give it free to people who would not buy it anyway, then your increase your visibility and your network effect. You might also get some patches back.
So put the source code online, maybe even try to get it in the Linux distributions for more visibility.
However, charge for the Windows binaries/installer. Most Windows users will pay $20 rather than have to figure out how to compile it. If they do compile it anyway then their time is worth less than $20 so they could not have afforded it anyway.
Well if the IT skill of the current school staff is something approaching zero (with outstanding exceptions) or they have little budget for staff at all, then replacing badly supported Windows with badly supported Linux might not be too bad, at least the kids can't fill them up with spyware, pirated games and so on.
Although, according to the warrant database, Charles only has a photocopier, no computer. The Queen apparently has an IBM machine, although that could be a server for all we know, if it is a server then it could be Linux or AIX.
The EEEPC labelled as the 'RM Minibook'. I think it is about time. As Nicolas Negroponte found in his landmark studies of how technology can aid education (and his subsequent laptop project), there is only one ratio that matters, children need their own individual computers to really get to know them and use them effectively.
In Britain, the government gives poorer kids meals and uniforms, laptops may well be next.
Slashdot Mirror
how do they expect to fight a war on 10 different fronts...
... I hear Darl McBride will be available on the job market very soon...
If you get such a patent, put it in a shell company, sell the stock, many billions, move on, goto 10.
The company filed a nonsense obvious patent. The examiner was overworked and didn't understand it anyway, tossed a coin and it was heads, passed the patent. Company gets lucky and tries to sue everyone.
America, America, America. I'm afraid you all have to stay behind after school.
If I got an American passport so I could make more money, but refused to learn or speak English, refused to use any of your cultural institutions, shops, etc. Refused to learn the anthem or talk to any American outside work.
Would I be really American?
Did not it actually want to play tic-tac-toe?
The problem with DRM is that it is a narrow technical solution to an wide ranging, largely non-technical, problem.
There's a clear economic message here - can you see it yet? When the cost of breaking DRM is higher than the profit to be made, DRM wins. It doesn't have to be perfect.
Well it allows DRM vendors to sell DRM systems. The technical difficulty of breaking DRM has to be higher than the average executive at a record company.
However, there are at least four aspects to the problems for DRM to actually work as you have described, i.e. as 'resistance' that stops the kids from copying enough for them to get on the bus, queue at a checkout and go home again.
1. Politics: The majority of people don't believe in the propaganda of the content industries. Even those that think they do, don't appear able to act on their beliefs.
2. Communication: You only have to break it once, then the means of circumvention can be spread at the speed of Ethernet.
3. Physics: It is harder and slower to build and deploy restrictions than destroy them.
4. Sociology: The productivity of a grown-up working in an office with paperwork, clocking out at 5, family commitments etc, is far lower than some dedicated student working 24 hours per day to get their Blue-ray player to 'work'.
TFA: The 777 model, which entered commercial service in 1995, relies heavily on computers, so one area for examination is whether the software functioned properly.
(wikipedia reference) - those buying expensive technology projects increasingly want the source code too.
If it is a software problem, then expect more public scrutiny of software based machinery. Especially after the US Senate vs UK debacle over the source code for the new joint-combat fighter.
Your argument is strong, and I have bookmarked it and will think about it some more.
At the moment making Windows ports does not fit well into my developer set-up. Most of the coolest stuff I do is as a hobby (they only pay for the dull stuff), and in one sense software is never complete, so doing an hour here and an hour there is easy on my normal computing platform.
However, having to find enough time to sit down at a windows box (not my normal or preferred setup) and sort out all the installers is unlikely at this point. Maybe I could setup a Virtual Machine and it would be easier.
Whether or not you acknowledge or believe it, the Windows platform is full of developers, testers and savvy end users. Just because Windows OS isn't free or open, doesn't mean its applications or users need to be locked out from OSS.
But at the end of the day, the Windows users need to make the Windows installers. It is not that they are locked out, but they are too busy making shareware or whatever it is they do. And when people get heavily into the open source, then they often move to Linux anyhow.
ooOOooOOooOoo a whole day hey ! Compared to the millennium it took to create the b*stard app.
In the open source world, the situation is often that you write an application because you have the need for it. Therefore working on the application for the millennium is fun, because you are doing it on the operating system you like and because you gain a useful application.
The problem is that a lot of open source programmers are on Linux or some other non-Windows OS. So we know (or care) very little about Windows. Getting the pipeline setup so it generates the Windows executables is actually long and dull if you personally have nothing to gain from it. Almost none of the software I have made has a Windows port, and the only one that has is because I was paid to do it for Windows.
So for some of my programs, by releasing a Windows port I could potentially increase the userbase by 2000%. However, that does not help me personally.
Some of the programs I work on are because there are none for Linux. Now I could release a Windows port, and it will be as powerful as the very expensive Windows programs that it replaces, but it would not help me personally.
Sure, up the numbers as appropriate for whatever the mystery app actually is.
And updated. And accurate. And legal.
In this case there is probably a better model. The application is open source but you pay for this year's data. For example, there is a company in my town that sells an open-source payroll, the government rules change every year so if you have a big firm then you probably want to pay for the template data that you preload rather than doing it all from completely scratch.
It sounds like to me that everything turned out beautifully. Remember, my idea is that those who are willing to pay end up paying, while those who were never willing to pay get the software anyway.
You were not willing to pay but you were willing to do some extra legwork Googling and you were rewarded for your legwork.
They claimed that making a Windows build was "hard" somehow,
It is actually quite hard in the sense that most open source programmers are on Linux or some other non-Windows OS. So we know (or care) very little about Windows. Therefore getting the pipeline setup so it generates the Windows executables (as you point out) is actually long and dull if you personally have nothing to gain from it.
So there are three solutions:
* the software never makes it to Windows.
* Windows users pay for the binaries
* a Windows user steps up to the plate and takes responsibility for the Windows binaries
The third is obviously best but it rarely happens, so the second is actually better than the first because at least the Windows binaries exists (al be it at cost). Sadly, the majority of open-source software is in the first case.
Well I think the site maintainers gage the popularity of various topics by how many comments there are. So you have effectively just voted for this story twice!
P.S. I think it is quite a relevant story to a lot of people here.
long it would take for someone to set up a "$YOURAPP Windows Installers" site
Do you know how long it takes to make Windows installers for software, I mean it is very boring work, that is why a lot of open source has no Windows installers. Open Source software usually requires packaging up lots of dependencies into a single EXE. Unless you are really hot, we are talking like a whole day's work for a simple application.
someone else will compile it and make the binaries available
That doesn't matter. People make copies of Microsoft Office available from other channels (e.g. pirate bay), however others still buy it.
People who are willing to buy it, including those that have work's expenses account, will buy it.
For the people who are not willing to buy it, they will never buy it, so let them have it free and get more exposure.
This strategy is not much than a donations strategy, but if I have my work's credit card, I can't pay for donations but I can buy software licences.
Well you can't really stop people putting on pirate bay either. However, people who are willing to pay will pay, and those that are not willing to pay will not.
If you are a business and you are buying the application then you will be happy to get it from the original author.
> And how long till that site is better known, higher in google and generating more ad revenue.
I really don't think it will be. It will be some corner that only people with lots of time will find, these people will not have bought it anyway.
won't someone just compile it and then give the .EXE for free?
Sure they will, however those willing to pay $20 will never find it. Time == Money.
I think the idea is bad for other reasons. However, in this situation, I suppose one could either demand joint copyright assignment so you can upstream the changes or if the code is really good share the revenue with the patch author.
I can't tell from TFA whether the "financial application" is a server or desktop application. Assuming it is a desktop application then I would point out that open source code does not have to mean open binaries.
Try to separate your markets. If you give it free to people who would not buy it anyway, then your increase your visibility and your network effect. You might also get some patches back.
So put the source code online, maybe even try to get it in the Linux distributions for more visibility.
However, charge for the Windows binaries/installer. Most Windows users will pay $20 rather than have to figure out how to compile it. If they do compile it anyway then their time is worth less than $20 so they could not have afforded it anyway.
Well if the IT skill of the current school staff is something approaching zero (with outstanding exceptions) or they have little budget for staff at all, then replacing badly supported Windows with badly supported Linux might not be too bad, at least the kids can't fill them up with spyware, pirated games and so on.
Ah okay, so now I know what OpenStreetMap is for ;)
...please email marcion@....
Just kidding (I like my job).
I don't see why not.
Although, according to the warrant database, Charles only has a photocopier, no computer. The Queen apparently has an IBM machine, although that could be a server for all we know, if it is a server then it could be Linux or AIX.
You hit it on the head.
The EEEPC labelled as the 'RM Minibook'. I think it is about time. As Nicolas Negroponte found in his landmark studies of how technology can aid education (and his subsequent laptop project), there is only one ratio that matters, children need their own individual computers to really get to know them and use them effectively.
In Britain, the government gives poorer kids meals and uniforms, laptops may well be next.