It would work like this: Corporations and end-user would have to pay for the service or software. But it wouldn't quite be commercial. The proceeds would be shared among the development team. But you could still retain the rights to see the source and modify or tweak it for your environment. Your only constraint is that if you redistribute, you must pay the licensing fee to the original team.
Re: the part in bold: how is that not commercial? Just because the revenues are shared by the developers? The very fact that you're charging for the use of the software makes it commercial.
Maybe I'm not understanding this properly... but it seems what you are describing is the status quo under copyright. End-user (be it corporate or not) pays a license fee to use the software. They can tweak it as much as they like, but if they want to distribute, they have to pay royalties to the holder of the copyright.
It doesn't matter if the copyright holders are the developers, as you mention, or the corporate overlord of the developers, or one guy in his basement.
How is this different from the non-free business as usual copyright system?
Maybe you should consider that your personal experience is not the sum of all human experience?
Those guys are out to make a quick buck. They don't need to give people a free sample, they aren't selling Avon.
You sure about that? Are you talking about retailers where they know the people will come to them? Perhaps you're unaware that those aren't the only kind of dealers around. Another question -- have you ever been in an area with an oversupply of drugs? It's amazing what an astute dealer will do to make sure he can move as much product as he chooses.
Drugs sell themselves, you don't need to have a market strategy to sell crack.
What if someone sells pot, but has a lot of shrooms or x to move that they got dirt cheap? And they have a bunch of pot customers who may be interested in the shrooms and x, but are a little timid about trying them?
This is not uncommon on college campuses, where turnover of the market is constant (as students graduate or move on).
I could get more into specifics, but this is not the place for discussion of personal experience along these lines, IMO.
I noticed through GamePolitics recently a large trend in severely controversial video games. Where do you stand on these titles?"
Anywhere you want. I typically stand on them in my kitchen, to get an extra couple inches when trying to reach the cookies my wife hid on the top shelf.
Yeah it's the same with sex, and then you get married.
What planet are you from?
With sex, it's "pay out the nose for it one way or another", then you get married, and it becomes "not at any price except for purposes of procreation and then you better be able to perform on-demand at the whim of the Fertility Gods as intimated by the Basal Thermometer Oracle and meanwhile all you can think of is a crying infant and the fact that you wore tight jeans yesterday and whether you remembered to backup your systems and then you have to go see a urologist because of your 'performance issues'".
"Pushers" looking to get you hooked are a fabrication by the drug warriors
Yes and no.
Free, or discount-rate, samples are a useful marketing tool for drug dealers as well as other "legitimate" businesses. Since so many of the drugs in question are addictive, there is an element of truth to pushers 'getting people hooked'.
It's not a myth created by the "drug warriors".
Not all drug dealers fit into this stereotype, but some definitely do. It's a business; identifying your potential markets, increasing the size of those markets, and increasing your penetration into those markets are all things done by successful dealers, although they may not refer to them in those terms. Another important strategy is steering customers to your highest-margin products; this is even better when they are adding those products on top of existing products, instead of replacing the other products. "Pushing" drugs and offering free samples are a great way to do all of these things.
If you haven't personally experienced these things, well, that's probably a measure of your exposure. Or it's a measure of how mature the market is where you are; a mature market doesn't require as much development.
I particularly like the bit where the interns in question laid the moonrocks down and a mattress and screwed on top of them, thereby making the contamination of the spent samples even worse. Made me wonder who was on the bottom.
Seriously, though, the thing read like a synopsis of a bad TV movie. It may or may not be true, but it's telling that the perp has a book coming out that is an 'augmented' account of the heist, that the author of the linked piece is summarizing what was told him by the perp.
IOW, don't take it with a grain of salt. Kill it with Na fire.
Thanks for clearing that up. I can't believe all this time I thought "down under" was in the heart of Europe.
Now that I've looked at a map, it also becomes clear why, though Australia is infested with crocodiles, Belgium isn't. I had always wondered about that.
But I still have one unanswered question... why is the alphorn so similar to a didgeridoo? Surely that isn't coincidence.
Just be happy Congress figured that out and killed the Texastron. What, you don't remember Texastron? Exactly, THAT'S how important this really is.
I *do* remember it, and I'm still unhappy about it.
There are a lot of incidentals positives that you completely disregard.
Furthermore, IMO, the fundamental search for knowledge is one of the noblest human endeavors in existence.
I understand your point completely, I've heard it a thousand times about scores of ideas or projects, and all I have to say is -- I disagree. Completely. I will never be convinced differently, and I will always believe that people in search of short-term yields only are idiots.
Now, I know that you're not saying something about short-term yields, you are questioning whether there are yields at all. Ancillary to what the accelerators are looking for are all the engineering advances coming from building the damn things, some of which may make their way into industrial or other processes. Advances in superconductors -- and experience with using them in situ -- alone may be worth the investment in the long run.
At any rate, when it comes down to opportunity cost for the funding, picking another research instrument as a target because it 'takes money away from "more worthy" projects' is also short-sighted. Why not take funding away from defense spending? Or from elsewhere? It's a logical fallacy to assume that one must fund either HEP or something else.
And yet a lot of practical research stands on the shoulders of the non-practical research that has come before.
It shows remarkable short-sightedness to publically fund only here-and-now practical applications, especially since practical applications are exactly where private industry has an incentive to pay for research.
I mean, whoop-de-doo, Austria's all "put another shrimp on the barbie, mate" and "crikey! we've got killer spiders mate" and "go root yerself, we're pulling out of CERN!".
The rest of the nations participating in CERN will be just fine without them.
Can anyone name a single discovery in HEP in the last 25 years that has led to a practical improvement of anything whatsoever? The only thing HEP has generated is paper.
Why so short-sighted? Why is it so important that something pay off tangibly within 25 years? Some of the great strides in medication today are applications of HEP-ph of the 30s and 50s that we continue to refine. Who knows what the future holds?
That's the great thing about knowledge. Sometimes the quest for knowledge is the most important part; sometimes the Answers are the important part; sometimes incidental discoveries are the most important part. But we'll never know unless we go for it.
I do agree that there's a risk of hearing more of one side than another, but the direct presentations to judges along with research that the judges themselves do should help counter that. The other extremes seem worse than the problem they're trying to cure.
The problem is that the judge is then introducing "testimony" (for lack of a better word) into the case. And if that testimony helps one side, the other side does not have the chance to present information or analysis that is counter to the testimony.
Furthmore, deep pockets could easily outweigh good analysis. Farming blog posts in support of your side of a case should have no bearing on the outcome of an appeal; unfortunately, that may become a real issue. It's simply the court of public opinion, except digital -- and quite possibly, easier to manipulate than general public opinion.
Modding a humorous post "insightful" is not an example of meta-humor, for all values of "sense-of-humor" that are not drawn from the null set. Modding a post complaining about an insightful moderation "insightful" -- now that would be meta-humor.
You young kids with your "Copying" and your "Pasting". In my day when a key on our keyboard broke, we learned to live without it. And our non-adjustable CT-syndrome-causing keyboard was in the case with the monitor and the CRT, and we liked it that way.
In retrospect, it sure made WASD games a pain in the ass, though. AAAAAAAAAA *move left dammit* AAAAAAAAAAAAAA *argh, died again!*
Please, someone undo that insightful moderation. Please!
I don't want anyone who reads that post to think it was anything other than a feeble attempt at humor... and if someone truly thought it was insightful, they need to have their head examined.
So what you're saying is, because of Trent Reznor, Apple implemented parental controls in the week between the initial rejection and the application being accepted.
Correlation != causation, dammit.
There could be some other factor that caused both events.
Like, say, the aliens who assume human form who have impersonated both Steve Jobs and Trent Reznor (to say nothing of Manny Ramirez or Dennis Hopper) have a diabolical plan to get millions of people to download their thought-control software via NIN downloads over the iPhone.
The decision to approve the app had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it was a high-profile app. They didn't reconsider just because Trent Reznor, with his celebrity status, bitched and complained and tried to Streisand the rejection.
They approved the app this time around because now the iPhone will have parental controls to filter objectionable material (included in the beta of 3.0).
Seriously, that's the biggest part of the whole deal with the NIN app, and it didn't get mentioned at all in the summary.
Plus I love the fact that one of the best uses of a wish in ADOM is to wish for potions of cure corruption. Adds another dimension to roguelikes, I find it weird to play roguelikes without corruption now...
When did you type that, 1963? Big business has ruled the US for decades.. welcome to the past.
It was a reference to the dystopian societies always set in "the future" -- like 1984 (when it was written), the Shadowrun world, etc.
But you're right, the 70s and 80s really saw the rise of the corporate-controlled government. Although even Reagan bothered with lip-service to the people ("trickle-down economics") -- Bush didn't even bother with that, and it appears Obama's method will be to pretend that's what he is really doing... and the sheeple will believe it.
That's the one common factor to all the leaders we've had since time immemorial... the sheeple. There's nothing quite like the fact that most people are happy to be ignorant.
Democrats = More govt = More regulation of citizens Republicans = Less govt = Less social benefits for citizens
I think you're a bit off.
Dems == more government [more regulation of citizens + more spending on citizens via social programs] Reps == more government [more regulation of citizens + more spending on business via defense programs].
Please note that "defense programs" includes things like war.
Slashdot Mirror
Re: the part in bold: how is that not commercial? Just because the revenues are shared by the developers? The very fact that you're charging for the use of the software makes it commercial.
Maybe I'm not understanding this properly... but it seems what you are describing is the status quo under copyright. End-user (be it corporate or not) pays a license fee to use the software. They can tweak it as much as they like, but if they want to distribute, they have to pay royalties to the holder of the copyright.
It doesn't matter if the copyright holders are the developers, as you mention, or the corporate overlord of the developers, or one guy in his basement.
How is this different from the non-free business as usual copyright system?
You sure about that? Are you talking about retailers where they know the people will come to them? Perhaps you're unaware that those aren't the only kind of dealers around. Another question -- have you ever been in an area with an oversupply of drugs? It's amazing what an astute dealer will do to make sure he can move as much product as he chooses.
What if someone sells pot, but has a lot of shrooms or x to move that they got dirt cheap? And they have a bunch of pot customers who may be interested in the shrooms and x, but are a little timid about trying them?
This is not uncommon on college campuses, where turnover of the market is constant (as students graduate or move on).
I could get more into specifics, but this is not the place for discussion of personal experience along these lines, IMO.
Anywhere you want. I typically stand on them in my kitchen, to get an extra couple inches when trying to reach the cookies my wife hid on the top shelf.
What planet are you from?
With sex, it's "pay out the nose for it one way or another", then you get married, and it becomes "not at any price except for purposes of procreation and then you better be able to perform on-demand at the whim of the Fertility Gods as intimated by the Basal Thermometer Oracle and meanwhile all you can think of is a crying infant and the fact that you wore tight jeans yesterday and whether you remembered to backup your systems and then you have to go see a urologist because of your 'performance issues'".
Or so I've heard.
Yes and no.
Free, or discount-rate, samples are a useful marketing tool for drug dealers as well as other "legitimate" businesses. Since so many of the drugs in question are addictive, there is an element of truth to pushers 'getting people hooked'.
It's not a myth created by the "drug warriors".
Not all drug dealers fit into this stereotype, but some definitely do. It's a business; identifying your potential markets, increasing the size of those markets, and increasing your penetration into those markets are all things done by successful dealers, although they may not refer to them in those terms. Another important strategy is steering customers to your highest-margin products; this is even better when they are adding those products on top of existing products, instead of replacing the other products. "Pushing" drugs and offering free samples are a great way to do all of these things.
If you haven't personally experienced these things, well, that's probably a measure of your exposure. Or it's a measure of how mature the market is where you are; a mature market doesn't require as much development.
I particularly like the bit where the interns in question laid the moonrocks down and a mattress and screwed on top of them, thereby making the contamination of the spent samples even worse. Made me wonder who was on the bottom.
Seriously, though, the thing read like a synopsis of a bad TV movie. It may or may not be true, but it's telling that the perp has a book coming out that is an 'augmented' account of the heist, that the author of the linked piece is summarizing what was told him by the perp.
IOW, don't take it with a grain of salt. Kill it with Na fire.
Thanks for clearing that up. I can't believe all this time I thought "down under" was in the heart of Europe.
Now that I've looked at a map, it also becomes clear why, though Australia is infested with crocodiles, Belgium isn't. I had always wondered about that.
But I still have one unanswered question... why is the alphorn so similar to a didgeridoo? Surely that isn't coincidence.
Are you kidding me? Your sarcasm detector didn't peg? Maybe you should take it in to have a professional look at it.
I *do* remember it, and I'm still unhappy about it.
There are a lot of incidentals positives that you completely disregard.
Furthermore, IMO, the fundamental search for knowledge is one of the noblest human endeavors in existence.
I understand your point completely, I've heard it a thousand times about scores of ideas or projects, and all I have to say is -- I disagree. Completely. I will never be convinced differently, and I will always believe that people in search of short-term yields only are idiots.
Now, I know that you're not saying something about short-term yields, you are questioning whether there are yields at all. Ancillary to what the accelerators are looking for are all the engineering advances coming from building the damn things, some of which may make their way into industrial or other processes. Advances in superconductors -- and experience with using them in situ -- alone may be worth the investment in the long run.
At any rate, when it comes down to opportunity cost for the funding, picking another research instrument as a target because it 'takes money away from "more worthy" projects' is also short-sighted. Why not take funding away from defense spending? Or from elsewhere? It's a logical fallacy to assume that one must fund either HEP or something else.
Lala...
You got me on my knees
Lala....
I'm beggin' honey please
That pretty much sums it up. Get on your knees and beg to gobble some music industry cock if you want to listen to music.
(with apologies to Bill Hicks, of course -- but I'm sure he wouldn't mind the sentiment)
And yet a lot of practical research stands on the shoulders of the non-practical research that has come before.
It shows remarkable short-sightedness to publically fund only here-and-now practical applications, especially since practical applications are exactly where private industry has an incentive to pay for research.
Gee, maybe the fact that you can move the keyboard independently of the monitor?
You can actually (*gasp*) tilt the keyboard to a better angle for your wrists, and raise it or lower it in relation to your desktop and monitor?
I know, right?
I mean, whoop-de-doo, Austria's all "put another shrimp on the barbie, mate" and "crikey! we've got killer spiders mate" and "go root yerself, we're pulling out of CERN!".
The rest of the nations participating in CERN will be just fine without them.
Why so short-sighted? Why is it so important that something pay off tangibly within 25 years? Some of the great strides in medication today are applications of HEP-ph of the 30s and 50s that we continue to refine. Who knows what the future holds?
That's the great thing about knowledge. Sometimes the quest for knowledge is the most important part; sometimes the Answers are the important part; sometimes incidental discoveries are the most important part. But we'll never know unless we go for it.
The problem is that the judge is then introducing "testimony" (for lack of a better word) into the case. And if that testimony helps one side, the other side does not have the chance to present information or analysis that is counter to the testimony.
Furthmore, deep pockets could easily outweigh good analysis. Farming blog posts in support of your side of a case should have no bearing on the outcome of an appeal; unfortunately, that may become a real issue. It's simply the court of public opinion, except digital -- and quite possibly, easier to manipulate than general public opinion.
I do when it's, you know, actually funny.
Modding a humorous post "insightful" is not an example of meta-humor, for all values of "sense-of-humor" that are not drawn from the null set. Modding a post complaining about an insightful moderation "insightful" -- now that would be meta-humor.
You young kids with your "Copying" and your "Pasting". In my day when a key on our keyboard broke, we learned to live without it. And our non-adjustable CT-syndrome-causing keyboard was in the case with the monitor and the CRT, and we liked it that way.
In retrospect, it sure made WASD games a pain in the ass, though. AAAAAAAAAA *move left dammit* AAAAAAAAAAAAAA *argh, died again!*
Please, someone undo that insightful moderation. Please!
I don't want anyone who reads that post to think it was anything other than a feeble attempt at humor... and if someone truly thought it was insightful, they need to have their head examined.
Correlation != causation, dammit.
There could be some other factor that caused both events.
Like, say, the aliens who assume human form who have impersonated both Steve Jobs and Trent Reznor (to say nothing of Manny Ramirez or Dennis Hopper) have a diabolical plan to get millions of people to download their thought-control software via NIN downloads over the iPhone.
Oh yeah? Then how'd you type that, smartypants?
Egads, that was a terrible summary.
The decision to approve the app had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it was a high-profile app. They didn't reconsider just because Trent Reznor, with his celebrity status, bitched and complained and tried to Streisand the rejection.
They approved the app this time around because now the iPhone will have parental controls to filter objectionable material (included in the beta of 3.0).
Seriously, that's the biggest part of the whole deal with the NIN app, and it didn't get mentioned at all in the summary.
Who cares about cranes when someone could make a *flying dinosaur*?
Lots of ways to reduce corruption exposure...
Plus I love the fact that one of the best uses of a wish in ADOM is to wish for potions of cure corruption. Adds another dimension to roguelikes, I find it weird to play roguelikes without corruption now...
It was a reference to the dystopian societies always set in "the future" -- like 1984 (when it was written), the Shadowrun world, etc.
But you're right, the 70s and 80s really saw the rise of the corporate-controlled government. Although even Reagan bothered with lip-service to the people ("trickle-down economics") -- Bush didn't even bother with that, and it appears Obama's method will be to pretend that's what he is really doing... and the sheeple will believe it.
That's the one common factor to all the leaders we've had since time immemorial... the sheeple. There's nothing quite like the fact that most people are happy to be ignorant.
I think you're a bit off.
Dems == more government [more regulation of citizens + more spending on citizens via social programs]
Reps == more government [more regulation of citizens + more spending on business via defense programs].
Please note that "defense programs" includes things like war.