Listen, if they really wanted to drop out of the market they would, without threats, without fanfare, they would just drop.
This isn't what they want. They want authorities to enforce, with whatever means necessary, these ridiculous laws concerning pirating with threat of great economic damage to the country. HAH!
I say let them drop out, something will replace Adobe's program or better yet, there is rarely a reason to upgrade so they can just keep using the ones they already have.
REALLY, would life stop because Adobe disappeared?
You take control from the lawyers!
on
Lawsuits Suck
·
· Score: 1
Lawyers and Corporations do control, at least the United States if not the World. You can't beat them at their game, certainly not with their rules.
Suck seems to think that we can. It is time to stand up and take back what's supposed to be ours. But it's not going to happen by playing by their rules. Does anyone really believe that even a large group of people can effect the outcome of a case going through the US Court System? The people will eventually have to take what belongs to them from the power elite. Don't play by their rules, let's make a new set of rules that benefit all people worldwide not just the power elite!!!!!
It seems Vanity rears it's ugly head. I think displaying the authors credentials in the source is a good idea. But where will it stop. When you use DHTML code from certain sites you have to use an ad and a link. That ad may ruin the whole look and feel of the site.
How about a signiture in the bottom corner as any piece of art. Or even better hide the signature in the layout somewhere. Then when you want to show off your work you can show someone and appease your vanity.
But you have to ask what is open source about. Is it about doing something for the community? These are the same thoughts that get most corporations where they are today. Let's try and not get greedy and vain. Try and be selfless.
Exercise: Compare most software in 1990 vs most software today. If we do this Microsoft isn't a standout at all. Purchasing technology isn't innovative.
It's even plausable to blame Microsoft (not particularly) and other Mega Corporations for the state of research in our educational system. With more research being paid for by these corporations, only research that is economically viable is being performed. I'm sure that's exciting research.
Microsoft is the biggest cause of brain drain on the educational system is it any wonder that the Universities cannot do any research or that Microsoft may some day be innovative. You give Microsoft way to much credit. There an entity to make profit and if they accidently innovate let's not praise them to much.
I agree that most issues are not black and white. However I refuse to believe that people's only motivation to do anything of value for a society is purely whether it makes a profit. What about Jonas Salk, Albert Einstien, and a long list of great thinkers and innovators.
Now the corporations that funded their work (If that was the case)... they may have been in it for the profit. How 'bout we give all the Corporate Welfare money to "Open Source" people so the discoveries benefit all people and not just the priveledged elite.
When someone uses the argument "Innovation won't happen without compensation" has a poor view of the human race. We're better than that
I think lawyers are, for the most part, good at what they do. They argue the case for the people that hire them. They obviously can't know everything about all subjects but they do need to have a better than average knowledge about what they argue.
I would say that most lawyers do not have the depth and breadth of knowledge a techie does, therefore they do not understand the technology the way a techie does.
But, they certainly know how to construct a logical argument. As with most cases argued in our court system both sides will present the facts that help their case and try to suppress the facts that will hurt their case. I think with all the facts presented without the legal spins and biases, you would see that the techies know more!
When we talk about the GPL, LGPL or any other Licensing scheme we have to think about what the license applies to. It can and should only apply to the software not the data. In the case of any Database Management software it applies only to the tool, the DBMS itself, and in no way applies to the data contained within. If we were to apply it to anything created with the tool or any data we store in it, things would be much worse.
If we apply the same logic to the Gimp or for that matter any software program any graphics created with the Gimp would be subject to the GPL. Or much worse, any Word Perfect Document created with WP would be subject to Corel's particular license.
In no way do I agree that data in a database can be owned by the person who compiled it. If MY personal data is included in any database, I believe I'm entitled to a piece of the pie. If you didn't create that data how can you possibly own it. THINGS ARE GETTING OUT OF HAND!
There may or may not be an answer but a licensing scheme such as this will make things worse.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't what they want. They want authorities to enforce, with whatever means necessary, these ridiculous laws concerning pirating with threat of great economic damage to the country. HAH!
I say let them drop out, something will replace Adobe's program or better yet, there is rarely a reason to upgrade so they can just keep using the ones they already have.
REALLY, would life stop because Adobe disappeared?
Suck seems to think that we can. It is time to stand up and take back what's supposed to be ours. But it's not going to happen by playing by their rules. Does anyone really believe that even a large group of people can effect the outcome of a case going through the US Court System? The people will eventually have to take what belongs to them from the power elite. Don't play by their rules, let's make a new set of rules that benefit all people worldwide not just the power elite!!!!!
How about a signiture in the bottom corner as any piece of art. Or even better hide the signature in the layout somewhere. Then when you want to show off your work you can show someone and appease your vanity.
But you have to ask what is open source about. Is it about doing something for the community? These are the same thoughts that get most corporations where they are today. Let's try and not get greedy and vain. Try and be selfless.
I think it stupid patents are getting through it's the fault of the Patent system. That's were the fix needs to be.
It's even plausable to blame Microsoft (not particularly) and other Mega Corporations for the state of research in our educational system. With more research being paid for by these corporations, only research that is economically viable is being performed. I'm sure that's exciting research.
Microsoft is the biggest cause of brain drain on the educational system is it any wonder that the Universities cannot do any research or that Microsoft may some day be innovative. You give Microsoft way to much credit. There an entity to make profit and if they accidently innovate let's not praise them to much.
Now the corporations that funded their work (If that was the case) ... they may have been in it for the profit. How 'bout we give all the Corporate Welfare money to "Open Source" people so the discoveries benefit all people and not just the priveledged elite.
When someone uses the argument "Innovation won't happen without compensation" has a poor view of the human race. We're better than that
I would say that most lawyers do not have the depth and breadth of knowledge a techie does, therefore they do not understand the technology the way a techie does.
But, they certainly know how to construct a logical argument. As with most cases argued in our court system both sides will present the facts that help their case and try to suppress the facts that will hurt their case. I think with all the facts presented without the legal spins and biases, you would see that the techies know more!
If we apply the same logic to the Gimp or for that matter any software program any graphics created with the Gimp would be subject to the GPL. Or much worse, any Word Perfect Document created with WP would be subject to Corel's particular license.
In no way do I agree that data in a database can be owned by the person who compiled it. If MY personal data is included in any database, I believe I'm entitled to a piece of the pie. If you didn't create that data how can you possibly own it. THINGS ARE GETTING OUT OF HAND!
There may or may not be an answer but a licensing scheme such as this will make things worse.