I expect Microsoft will continue to pick off the small distros, trying to build some PR momentum before training their guns on the larger players in the Linux industry. Not dissimilar to SCO's approach.
Actually, SCO used the opposite approach. They sued the biggest player first, and smaller players second. Microsoft looks more like Acacia Technologies. They have a patent on streaming media over a communications network, and they started by suing the porn industry, since the mainstream didn't care. That allowed them to build up a warchest to use against bigger fish in the pond.
As someone said, the plan might be to get enough companies on the hook to not be able to use GPLv3 software, having to fork the current GPLv2 codebase, effectively splitting the community in two parts.
So aside from the software being free as in beer, why should any non-programmer care about open source?
Well, you said it yourself: You can hire people to fix your programs. Not only the original developer, but any competent developer. You can't do this with closed source.
As other people have written, the LGPL actually allows static linking, but you need to provide source code and/or compiled object files for the binary so that the binary can be relinked with a modified version of the library.
I officially LOVE the ribbon, and I can't wait until (hopefully) OpenOffice implements this feature.
Don't hold your breath, as it probably won't happen for the next 20 years, as it rumored to be covered by umpteen Microsoft patents. The license you need to agree to to use the ribbon explicitly prohibits competing applications from using the concept.
he talked about ending his long-time relationship with EMI
At that point, I thought that he was disappointed that EMI would be publishing music without draconian DRM, and that this was the reason why he ended his relationship with them.
The dangerous part is how such notions have warped morals and US government policies. "Owners" have convinced a large portion of the US government that "IP" is the way to tax the world, to become some kind of thought and idea owners and make everyone else do the dirty work.
A while ago I read an interesting text about why this is the case. The argument was that the US and the rest of the western world have realized that it is only a matter of time before they will be out-competed by low-cost countries in the third world on all material goods. To survive, IP will be the new and only export of the western world. Since IP by its nature can be copied, the entire world has to enact incredibly harsh laws regarding IP, so that nobody will infringe, simply out of fear for their life. That would be why the US and the EU are pressuring the rest of the world into accepting and enforcing their (our) quite silly IP laws.
I am actually happy everytime US law take another step towards insanity.
I'm not, since the US has a tendency to export their silly laws to the rest of the world. And the rest of the world swallows them, hook, line and sinker, since "the US has the world's greatest economy, so any of its laws even distantly relating to the economy must be first rate".
Or a book/film genre. Like if someone patented the drama, action or police procedural, to name a few popular movie/television genres. That each of those could have an element of the others just make it a better analogy (one invention is often covered by multiple patents).
It should be applied to exactly those fields where it translates into bigger growth.
Exactly. This was a problem in the process to ram the EU CII directive through the accepting process. Many corporations argued that they were necessary for continued growth in the software industry, but no economic research showed such a prediction. Many well-known economists actually argued that software patents would harm the software industry by stifling innovation and harming small and medium-sized businesses in favor of the large multinational corporations.
As I understand it, software patents just say what the software does, not how it does it.
That depends. I think that some patents are pretty specific, such as the RSA patent or the LZW patent. They cover a specific algorithm to do a certain task. Such patents are acceptable if we must have software patents. What is unacceptable are the "concept patents", that are overly broad and cover ideas, not algorithms. The Acacia Technologies patent on streaming media over a network is a prime example. When you have a network and a digitized media file, it is trivial to "invent" streaming media over the network, and thus is not novel enough to warrant a patent.
Software patents could be allowed to exist if the patent office really shaped up and started rejecting patents that are overbroad and doesn't cover specific inventions that are truly innovative. But since they have already granted tens of thousands of patents that does not pass these requirements, it does not suffice to just shape up from now on. The software field would still be a legal minefield for the next 20 years, unless they would actually start rejecting already granted patents. If this cannot be done, prohibiting any software patent is the only solution. If this also turn out to be "impossible", I see no other way than to dismantle the entire patent system.
you have to deposit at least 5000 euros as "social capital" before starting ANY company, as a guarantee that your creditors and employees will have some money left over if/when you go bankrupt.
Ehrm, no. That is the case with joint stock companies, i.e. companies that are owned by shareholders. The reason why you have to pay this amount is because of the limited liability this type of company gives. Other company types make the owners personally liable if the company cannot pay their bills. I would be very surprised if the US does not have such a requirement on joint stock companies (known as business corporations in the United States).
I suggest that you read up on corporations, especially the part about limited liability.
The world does not need more crappy little things made by minuscule teams of amateurs.
The giants of today haven't always been large. Every one of them started small. Most people agree that having a thriving small business sector is vital to the economy. Making it hard to start new businesses is not a good thing for society.
Cox says that the rest of the world doesn't allow patents on software. That is entirely wrong. Most do, even the European Union allows them
Ehrm, no, the EU does not allow software patents, there is simply no (single) rule about them. The EPC (European Patent Convention) does not allow software patents. The EPO* (European Patent Office) issues software patents, but their legality depends on whether the jurisdiction recognizes them as valid or not. In other words, it is up to the individual member states whether to recognize software patents as valid or not. Some states do and others don't.
Software patents were on track to become legally valid across the EU with the now disbanded CII directive, but after it was sufficiently amended to narrow the scope of applicability, the big corporations became afraid that a directive effectively prohibiting broad software patents would be put into law. Thus, they told their paid MEPs to vote the directive down together with the critics. The corporations figured no law would be better than a law prohibiting their beloved patents, making their enforceability up to the individual member country instead.
Note: The countries represented by the EPO is not the same set of countries that are members of the EU. I think that the EPO members are the same countries as those that have signed the EPC, but I'm not entirely sure.
The general strategy is to try to produce enough evidence to get a court order for a search as part of a case against you
I've never heard of the police actually conducting a raid against suspected license violators here. They have more important things to do than enforcing the TV license. Unless you actually confess to owning a TV, you are almost in the clear. Most people pay anyway, since they think it's the right thing to do.
they park outside and try to detect your TV (no idea how accurate this is...).
I think that it is accurate enough to tell which building it comes from, but not enough to distinguish one apartment from another. I've heard that they sometimes do this, but I think they did it more in the past. Now they just knock on your door and try to sound like a legal authority so that you will feel obliged to let them in.
I wonder what proportion of the license fee is spent sending out millions of notices to people without TVs.
Not only sending out notices, but having actual people travelling around the country knocking on peoples' doors and possibly trying to detect unlicensed TV sets. I just find the whole idea ridiculous.
On a funny side note, shortly after the new (right-wing) administration took office last fall, the press found out that the new culture minister hadn't registered for a TV license for at least 16 years. This was significant because she would be responsible for the public service television and indirectly the channeling of the TV license fees. There was a media outrage, especially by the public service television SVT, and she was more or less forced to resign just a few days later. Some time later, the TV license company reported a significant upsurge of new licensees, in the order of 35000 in a week. It is usually in the hundreds per week.:)
Actually not. Some games sell on hype and name only. This was especially the case in the past (I think most games have demo versions nowadays), with SimCity, Civilization and Microsoft Flight Simulator being notorious examples of games that didn't have demo versions in the past.
Availability of a demo version is only one factor though. Some demos were insanely limited, and did not create a good "hook" effect (the "I just must buy this game" feeling). An excellent example is the demo of Advanced Tactical Fighters (ATF), that had a two minute "instant action" type demo, where you would start in the air surrounded by bogeys with no idea about how to do anything other than steer the plane. Then two minutes later, the demo would end, throwing you back into DOS. I bought the game anyway, but only after they had put the expanded ATF Gold version on sale for about $20.
Examples of games that gave a significant "hook effect" are Transport Tycoon, Rollercoaster Tycoon, Homeworld, Imperium Galactica II and Earth 2150. Transport Tycoon was a time-limited demo covering two years, but two years took about an hour IIRC, so there was plenty of time to experiment. Rollercoaster Tycoon had a few scenarios and a small subset of the full set of attractions, but provided a good showcase of what you could do. Homeworld, IG2 and Earth 2150 had full tutorials and a few missions to get you started. These were all excellent demos that made me buy the game just a few days after trying it.
If the open source community were really that concerned, they'd hire a lawyer to dig through the patents that Microsoft controls.
Why? The open source community just uses the same policy as Microsoft with regard to possible infringements. The policy reads something like this: "If you claim that we are infringing your patents, you are welcome to come to us with details of those claimed infringements, and we'll try to find a solution for your problems".
In other words, Microsoft always want people to come to them to negotiate, regardless of whether Microsoft is the infringer or the infringed. That's just hypocrisy, so the most reasonable way is to apply their own policy regarding possible infringement on their part. We simply what them to come forward and detail those infringements so that they can be corrected (or the patents challenged). That they flat out refuse to do so is quite telling.
The BBC is legally obligated to do all it can to protect the content and ensure it's only available to those who have paid their license fees. If DRM didn't exist, there would be *no* online media from the BBC.
I wonder why the BBC cannot do this, when the Swedish public service television (SVT) can. SVT is financed by TV license fees, just like the BBC. Sure, they do not put up externally produced shows (such as movies and television shows), but a great amount of internally produced content is put on the web without DRM.
I have thus far received 7 letters this year threatening me with legal action for using a TV without a license. They now want to schedule an enforcement visit to gather their evidence
I don't know what powers the license enforcement people have in the UK, but in Sweden, they have the same rights as any citizen, i.e. no police or other elevated powers whatsoever. The can knock on your door and ask if you have a TV, but they cannot enter your apartment. If they try to force their way in, you can file a complaint with the police, just like with any other crime.
They try to look and sound very official, often slightly threatening, so that people would think that they have some type of elevated privileges, but they don't. If you are aware of this fact, they would have a very hard time proving that you are in violation (many people think that they have to let them in, and then it is hard to deny that you have a TV if he/she sees one). I have heard of some cases where the enforcement guy actually forged a signature of an admission of owning a TV, whereby the license company would start to send invoices for the license fee. I don't know if these rumors are actually true, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are. I think that it depends a lot on the enforcer. Some are nice (yes, I have had a visit, I politely told her that I don't own a TV, and she accepted my answer without questions), while some are probably (quite a bit) less nice.
If you don't want DRM then stop pirating, you can't have it both ways.
No, DRM won't go away even if suddenly all people stopped pirating music and movies. DRM is an effective* way of preventing format shifting and personal copying, so that you have to buy the same content several times if you want to have it available in several places at once, like in your computer media library, in your portable player, in your car, on your phone, etc. If everyone just stopped pirating, the content companies would simply say "thanks for all the extra money" and keep the DRM in place.
*= Effective against casual copying and format shifting, not uncrackable for the determined cracker.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, SCO used the opposite approach. They sued the biggest player first, and smaller players second. Microsoft looks more like Acacia Technologies. They have a patent on streaming media over a communications network, and they started by suing the porn industry, since the mainstream didn't care. That allowed them to build up a warchest to use against bigger fish in the pond.
Oh? Usually people claim that US and Japan are examples of countries that allow software patents. I have another example: Sweden.
As someone said, the plan might be to get enough companies on the hook to not be able to use GPLv3 software, having to fork the current GPLv2 codebase, effectively splitting the community in two parts.
Well, you said it yourself: You can hire people to fix your programs. Not only the original developer, but any competent developer. You can't do this with closed source.
Hmm, wasn't that ESR?
As other people have written, the LGPL actually allows static linking, but you need to provide source code and/or compiled object files for the binary so that the binary can be relinked with a modified version of the library.
Unless you're based in the United States. Then the MPAA would sue you into the ground, unless you include the required DRM systems.
At least, this is what people claim would happen if TiVo allowed people to mod their boxes.
Don't hold your breath, as it probably won't happen for the next 20 years, as it rumored to be covered by umpteen Microsoft patents. The license you need to agree to to use the ribbon explicitly prohibits competing applications from using the concept.
Don't forget another "King of Spam", Alan Ralsky. I've had many laughs about the treatment he received from Slashdot.
From the summary:
he talked about ending his long-time relationship with EMIAt that point, I thought that he was disappointed that EMI would be publishing music without draconian DRM, and that this was the reason why he ended his relationship with them.
Turned out to be slightly different. :)
A while ago I read an interesting text about why this is the case. The argument was that the US and the rest of the western world have realized that it is only a matter of time before they will be out-competed by low-cost countries in the third world on all material goods. To survive, IP will be the new and only export of the western world. Since IP by its nature can be copied, the entire world has to enact incredibly harsh laws regarding IP, so that nobody will infringe, simply out of fear for their life. That would be why the US and the EU are pressuring the rest of the world into accepting and enforcing their (our) quite silly IP laws.
Sadly, I forgot where I read it. Sorry.
I'm not, since the US has a tendency to export their silly laws to the rest of the world. And the rest of the world swallows them, hook, line and sinker, since "the US has the world's greatest economy, so any of its laws even distantly relating to the economy must be first rate".
AC, Anonymous Coward? ;)
Or a book/film genre. Like if someone patented the drama, action or police procedural, to name a few popular movie/television genres. That each of those could have an element of the others just make it a better analogy (one invention is often covered by multiple patents).
Exactly. This was a problem in the process to ram the EU CII directive through the accepting process. Many corporations argued that they were necessary for continued growth in the software industry, but no economic research showed such a prediction. Many well-known economists actually argued that software patents would harm the software industry by stifling innovation and harming small and medium-sized businesses in favor of the large multinational corporations.
That depends. I think that some patents are pretty specific, such as the RSA patent or the LZW patent. They cover a specific algorithm to do a certain task. Such patents are acceptable if we must have software patents. What is unacceptable are the "concept patents", that are overly broad and cover ideas, not algorithms. The Acacia Technologies patent on streaming media over a network is a prime example. When you have a network and a digitized media file, it is trivial to "invent" streaming media over the network, and thus is not novel enough to warrant a patent.
Software patents could be allowed to exist if the patent office really shaped up and started rejecting patents that are overbroad and doesn't cover specific inventions that are truly innovative. But since they have already granted tens of thousands of patents that does not pass these requirements, it does not suffice to just shape up from now on. The software field would still be a legal minefield for the next 20 years, unless they would actually start rejecting already granted patents. If this cannot be done, prohibiting any software patent is the only solution. If this also turn out to be "impossible", I see no other way than to dismantle the entire patent system.
Ehrm, no. That is the case with joint stock companies, i.e. companies that are owned by shareholders. The reason why you have to pay this amount is because of the limited liability this type of company gives. Other company types make the owners personally liable if the company cannot pay their bills. I would be very surprised if the US does not have such a requirement on joint stock companies (known as business corporations in the United States).
I suggest that you read up on corporations, especially the part about limited liability.
The world does not need more crappy little things made by minuscule teams of amateurs.The giants of today haven't always been large. Every one of them started small. Most people agree that having a thriving small business sector is vital to the economy. Making it hard to start new businesses is not a good thing for society.
Ehrm, no, the EU does not allow software patents, there is simply no (single) rule about them. The EPC (European Patent Convention) does not allow software patents. The EPO* (European Patent Office) issues software patents, but their legality depends on whether the jurisdiction recognizes them as valid or not. In other words, it is up to the individual member states whether to recognize software patents as valid or not. Some states do and others don't.
Software patents were on track to become legally valid across the EU with the now disbanded CII directive, but after it was sufficiently amended to narrow the scope of applicability, the big corporations became afraid that a directive effectively prohibiting broad software patents would be put into law. Thus, they told their paid MEPs to vote the directive down together with the critics. The corporations figured no law would be better than a law prohibiting their beloved patents, making their enforceability up to the individual member country instead.
Note: The countries represented by the EPO is not the same set of countries that are members of the EU. I think that the EPO members are the same countries as those that have signed the EPC, but I'm not entirely sure.
I've never heard of the police actually conducting a raid against suspected license violators here. They have more important things to do than enforcing the TV license. Unless you actually confess to owning a TV, you are almost in the clear. Most people pay anyway, since they think it's the right thing to do.
they park outside and try to detect your TV (no idea how accurate this is...).I think that it is accurate enough to tell which building it comes from, but not enough to distinguish one apartment from another. I've heard that they sometimes do this, but I think they did it more in the past. Now they just knock on your door and try to sound like a legal authority so that you will feel obliged to let them in.
I wonder what proportion of the license fee is spent sending out millions of notices to people without TVs.Not only sending out notices, but having actual people travelling around the country knocking on peoples' doors and possibly trying to detect unlicensed TV sets. I just find the whole idea ridiculous.
On a funny side note, shortly after the new (right-wing) administration took office last fall, the press found out that the new culture minister hadn't registered for a TV license for at least 16 years. This was significant because she would be responsible for the public service television and indirectly the channeling of the TV license fees. There was a media outrage, especially by the public service television SVT, and she was more or less forced to resign just a few days later. Some time later, the TV license company reported a significant upsurge of new licensees, in the order of 35000 in a week. It is usually in the hundreds per week. :)
Actually not. Some games sell on hype and name only. This was especially the case in the past (I think most games have demo versions nowadays), with SimCity, Civilization and Microsoft Flight Simulator being notorious examples of games that didn't have demo versions in the past.
Availability of a demo version is only one factor though. Some demos were insanely limited, and did not create a good "hook" effect (the "I just must buy this game" feeling). An excellent example is the demo of Advanced Tactical Fighters (ATF), that had a two minute "instant action" type demo, where you would start in the air surrounded by bogeys with no idea about how to do anything other than steer the plane. Then two minutes later, the demo would end, throwing you back into DOS. I bought the game anyway, but only after they had put the expanded ATF Gold version on sale for about $20.
Examples of games that gave a significant "hook effect" are Transport Tycoon, Rollercoaster Tycoon, Homeworld, Imperium Galactica II and Earth 2150. Transport Tycoon was a time-limited demo covering two years, but two years took about an hour IIRC, so there was plenty of time to experiment. Rollercoaster Tycoon had a few scenarios and a small subset of the full set of attractions, but provided a good showcase of what you could do. Homeworld, IG2 and Earth 2150 had full tutorials and a few missions to get you started. These were all excellent demos that made me buy the game just a few days after trying it.
Why? The open source community just uses the same policy as Microsoft with regard to possible infringements. The policy reads something like this: "If you claim that we are infringing your patents, you are welcome to come to us with details of those claimed infringements, and we'll try to find a solution for your problems".
In other words, Microsoft always want people to come to them to negotiate, regardless of whether Microsoft is the infringer or the infringed. That's just hypocrisy, so the most reasonable way is to apply their own policy regarding possible infringement on their part. We simply what them to come forward and detail those infringements so that they can be corrected (or the patents challenged). That they flat out refuse to do so is quite telling.
I wonder why the BBC cannot do this, when the Swedish public service television (SVT) can. SVT is financed by TV license fees, just like the BBC. Sure, they do not put up externally produced shows (such as movies and television shows), but a great amount of internally produced content is put on the web without DRM.
I don't know what powers the license enforcement people have in the UK, but in Sweden, they have the same rights as any citizen, i.e. no police or other elevated powers whatsoever. The can knock on your door and ask if you have a TV, but they cannot enter your apartment. If they try to force their way in, you can file a complaint with the police, just like with any other crime.
They try to look and sound very official, often slightly threatening, so that people would think that they have some type of elevated privileges, but they don't. If you are aware of this fact, they would have a very hard time proving that you are in violation (many people think that they have to let them in, and then it is hard to deny that you have a TV if he/she sees one). I have heard of some cases where the enforcement guy actually forged a signature of an admission of owning a TV, whereby the license company would start to send invoices for the license fee. I don't know if these rumors are actually true, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are. I think that it depends a lot on the enforcer. Some are nice (yes, I have had a visit, I politely told her that I don't own a TV, and she accepted my answer without questions), while some are probably (quite a bit) less nice.
No, DRM won't go away even if suddenly all people stopped pirating music and movies. DRM is an effective* way of preventing format shifting and personal copying, so that you have to buy the same content several times if you want to have it available in several places at once, like in your computer media library, in your portable player, in your car, on your phone, etc. If everyone just stopped pirating, the content companies would simply say "thanks for all the extra money" and keep the DRM in place.
*= Effective against casual copying and format shifting, not uncrackable for the determined cracker.
I'm surprised you used your Slashdot alias and not Anonymous Coward to post this message, as trolls and flamebaiters usually do the latter.