You box and sell it by taking a snapshot, and selling the current state as of the time when the snapshot is made. However, you continue to continuously upgrade all of the components so that, having purchased the 'snapshot', users can keep their code up-to-date and with all of the bug and security fixes.
Why does there need to the start of beta? Should not all distributions be continuously in beta? That is, the distribution should not be static but should be under continuous upgrade as upgrades to individual components/packages are released. Then the 'released' versions would become a snapshot of the state of the build.
Am I right in thinking that the musical artists contracts often require that they release a certain number of songs in a given timescale? If so then would the removal of this "corporate pressure" not increase the quality of the artists work?
A GPL'd driver may not be able to be used in a *BSD system, but a BSD licenced driver can be used in Linux or as part of a GPL'd system. Though, from a hardware manufacturer's perspective I suspect that BSD licencing would be even less acceptable than GPL as it would allow someone else to make the driver proprietary.
2. The "immunity from lawsuits" provision of the AHRA probably does NOT apply to professional digital audio recorders (which aren't required to have all the SCMS and tax crap) or to computers. (A computer is not a digital audio recorder for the purposes of the AHRA; the computer industry lobbyists let it be known that they'd fight to block the AHRA, unless the record industry left computers alone.)
Where does the extract from the AHRA say this? It says nothing about the equipment used to make the recording, just about the status (consumer) of the person performing the duplication, and the non-commercial nature of it.
Except that multiplier locking also prevents underclocking. If the chip is set for x6 multiplier, then for a given FSB the clock frequency is fixed. So you cannot run the system at 500MHz with a 100MHz FSB, you have to run it at 600MHz. Designers often want to run at lower clock rates than maximum
Why do you have not have the "right" to overclock? Should the hardware designer not be at liberty to apply whatever clock (s)he likes to any chips in the design? The manufacturers publish datasheets which show the timing graphs, but what right do the manufacturers have to mandate the clock rate which is applied to their chips?
If you walk into a record store and purchase a CD with cash, they will know what was purchased and from where, but not who bought it. How are they going to track the fact that the person who just purchased CD X is the same person who purchased Y & Z last week and A two weeks before that?
Maybe instead of removing copyright on music, it could be put back into the hands of the composers, lyricists and performers. These are the people who should hold the copyright, not the distributors.
Interesting that it is the earlier editions which are very detailed on the inner workings. I wonder if this part of the trend (seen especially in magazines) away from writing for the enthusiast towards consumerism?
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but the rule is that movies must be distributed on film first to be eligible for Oscars.
That does not say that it has to be shown in a cinema before being shown on the internet. Does it not just mean that it has to be available for showing?
I thought that the Berne Convention had harmonised most country's copyright rules. Here in the UK, the copyright timer only starts after the author's death. So a work is still in copyright while the author (or artist) is still alive and for a period (it used to be 50 years, but I think it is now longer) after his/her death. Is the USA different?
I agree that copyright holders should be allowed to control the copying of works, but why should they also have the right to restrict the distribution? Once I have a copy of a work which has been produced either by or with the permission of the copyright holder, why should the copyright holder be able to impose any additional restrictions (except for copying) on what I can do with the goods I have purchased.
And someone creating an infringing "device" between the time of application and the patent being granted, should cause the application to fail under the "obviousness" rule.
I suppose that in a way it is similar to the situation wrt postage stamps. Stamps from every country, except the UK, carry the country name. Though the difference is that "non-country-marked" stamps do not claim to be global but are actually country specific.
Or maybe prohibit any one entity (corporation or individual) from registering the same 2nd level domain in more than one TLD[1]. So if you register xyz.com then you cannot also register xyz.org, xyz.net etc. This would force people to choose wisely in which TLD to register.
[1] With the possible exception of ISPs who would be allowed to register in the.net TLD (for their own equipment) as well as an appropriate one for use by their customers.
Slashdot Mirror
You box and sell it by taking a snapshot, and selling the current state as of the time when the snapshot is made. However, you continue to continuously upgrade all of the components so that, having purchased the 'snapshot', users can keep their code up-to-date and with all of the bug and security fixes.
Why does there need to the start of beta? Should not all distributions be continuously in beta? That is, the distribution should not be static but should be under continuous upgrade as upgrades to individual components/packages are released. Then the 'released' versions would become a snapshot of the state of the build.
Am I right in thinking that the musical artists contracts often require that they release a certain number of songs in a given timescale? If so then would the removal of this "corporate pressure" not increase the quality of the artists work?
Or even a Tolkien fan site about Aragorn and his kin.
A GPL'd driver may not be able to be used in a *BSD system, but a BSD licenced driver can be used in Linux or as part of a GPL'd system. Though, from a hardware manufacturer's perspective I suspect that BSD licencing would be even less acceptable than GPL as it would allow someone else to make the driver proprietary.
Or that the Mac programmers are more capable than the Windows ones of writing code which meets the specification.
W3C is not always too slow. Take CSS (Cascading Style Sheets). How many browsers even implement CSS2, never mind extending it?
2. The "immunity from lawsuits" provision of the AHRA probably does NOT apply to professional digital audio recorders (which aren't required to have all the SCMS and tax crap) or to computers. (A computer is not a digital audio recorder for the purposes of the AHRA; the computer industry lobbyists let it be known that they'd fight to block the AHRA, unless the record industry left computers alone.)
Where does the extract from the AHRA say this? It says nothing about the equipment used to make the recording, just about the status (consumer) of the person performing the duplication, and the non-commercial nature of it.
Except that multiplier locking also prevents underclocking. If the chip is set for x6 multiplier, then for a given FSB the clock frequency is fixed. So you cannot run the system at 500MHz with a 100MHz FSB, you have to run it at 600MHz. Designers often want to run at lower clock rates than maximum
Why do you have not have the "right" to overclock? Should the hardware designer not be at liberty to apply whatever clock (s)he likes to any chips in the design? The manufacturers publish datasheets which show the timing graphs, but what right do the manufacturers have to mandate the clock rate which is applied to their chips?
If you walk into a record store and purchase a CD with cash, they will know what was purchased and from where, but not who bought it. How are they going to track the fact that the person who just purchased CD X is the same person who purchased Y & Z last week and A two weeks before that?
Maybe instead of removing copyright on music, it could be put back into the hands of the composers, lyricists and performers. These are the people who should hold the copyright, not the distributors.
But in the context it is being used here, it has the traditional meaning not the "popular" one.
I suppose that it is too late now to pressure for a single worldwide Digital TV standard and banish the NTSC, PAL and SECAM split.
Interesting that it is the earlier editions which are very detailed on the inner workings. I wonder if this part of the trend (seen especially in magazines) away from writing for the enthusiast towards consumerism?
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but the rule is that movies must be distributed on film first to be eligible for Oscars.
That does not say that it has to be shown in a cinema before being shown on the internet. Does it not just mean that it has to be available for showing?
I thought that the Berne Convention had harmonised most country's copyright rules. Here in the UK, the copyright timer only starts after the author's death. So a work is still in copyright while the author (or artist) is still alive and for a period (it used to be 50 years, but I think it is now longer) after his/her death. Is the USA different?
I agree that copyright holders should be allowed to control the copying of works, but why should they also have the right to restrict the distribution? Once I have a copy of a work which has been produced either by or with the permission of the copyright holder, why should the copyright holder be able to impose any additional restrictions (except for copying) on what I can do with the goods I have purchased.
But, of course, most of the test images would have to be non-pornographic so that they could check for false positives.
And someone creating an infringing "device" between the time of application and the patent being granted, should cause the application to fail under the "obviousness" rule.
I suppose that in a way it is similar to the situation wrt postage stamps. Stamps from every country, except the UK, carry the country name. Though the difference is that "non-country-marked" stamps do not claim to be global but are actually country specific.
Or maybe prohibit any one entity (corporation or individual) from registering the same 2nd level domain in more than one TLD[1]. So if you register xyz.com then you cannot also register xyz.org, xyz.net etc. This would force people to choose wisely in which TLD to register.
[1] With the possible exception of ISPs who would be allowed to register in the .net TLD (for their own equipment) as well as an appropriate one for use by their customers.
Isn't that backwards? Screen shots taken by other people are realistic, those taken by the PR department do not show the "true" picture.
How did they put in a multi-platform executable? Or did this only work with Windows?
If it was open then it would have no secrets for anyone to steal. Using the correct open licence would also ensure that it remained open.