I'm not saying they should be paid... What I don't like to see is someone is adding something silly ("hey, let's sell stuff on the net") to a much larger work (the Internet) and then claiming he owns everything because he has put so much work and talent in it.
There are many well-run organizations under the UN, like the World Health Organization. For telecom, there's already the ITU. While not being a model of good performance, I don't think it's worse than other telecom organizations either.
Otherwise, what do you propose anyway. Leave it with ICANN? To Bush?
Let me see, the guys who invented Ethernet, IP, DNS, HTTP,... don't get a dime (from patents at least), but the guy who said "hey, I think eventually someone will use that to sell stuff" gets all the money. Sounds fair?
You got it completely backwards. You need to convince the DRM developer that his scheme is unbreakable and that no further review will help. Then you convince all the media companies to make them standard....and then you break it (see DVD CSS) and you're able to use the CD/DVD you bought as you please.
I wouldn't go that far, even though I don't like biometrics. Imagine a system that takes a blood test from you and checks the DNA. While not practical (at all), it would be near-impossible to fool, assuming a semi-smart system that can check it really found flesh and not a bag of blood.
Actually, it is possible to insert a signature without making the code obfuscated. One example is by playing with white spaces. It is, however, very easy to remove if you suspect there's a watermark in the code. A more clever method would slightly play with the style in general, but I don't think it could be robust enough. If you want to protect open-source code, you just mail it to yourself (to prove you wrote it) and then use a comparator like the one from ESR.
Spreading worms/virus is already a computer crime and can probably get you at least 5 years (if not more). How many of those spammers do you see in jail?
The solution is to find a way to make e-mail cost money to use. It's only because e-mail is so cheep to abuse that spam is so prevalent.
You really think that? Ever heard of spammers making worms/virus so their spam gets sent from other machines? If email costs money, the bill would get paid by these people not the spammers (and the spam would continue).
Personally, I do not find the new XFree86 license to be unreasonable, or incompatible with the GPL.
So GPL-compatibility is a matter of personal appreciation now? I believe that if they (Mandrake, Debian, probably more soon) decide not to ship 4.4, there must be a valid reason. BTW, sometimes a license if must very slightly annoying and you're tempted to go with it anyway. That may work fine... until you end up with 1000 packages with "just slightly annoying" licenses and the whole requirement becomes "really really annoying".
This is not a matter of choosing software based on our political ideals. Just imagine buying a Mandrake 15 DVD set and then discovering there are 185 different programs you need to register before you are allowed to install. Sounds fun? Now, as some people pointed out, the registration is not mandatory, but it if were, it's not just something "only free software zealots" care about.
I disagree that only companies that don't make things benefit from patents. They can help the little guy, too. They keep the big guys from just taking the innovations from the little guy and using them.
The problem here is that the little guy probably infringe on many of the big guy's (trivial) patents. That allows the big guy to take the innovating idea anyway, because if little guy sues, he's counter-sued for patent infringement. Also, what small inventor has the resources to sue Microsoft or IBM in the first place. Right now, I think patents only benefit: 1) The big guy wanting to squash the little guy (who doesn't infringe at least one patent from a large company) 2) The "medium guy" who doesn't sell anything and want to sue the big guy
Then I think that a clarification would really help. Most of the time the author wants something like that, it's phrased as "as a matter of courtesy, the author would like to be informed of use...".
it puts food on the table. It gives the species the solid base to support the innovators, who do oftentimes get it wrong after all.
See, I think patents more often take food *away* from the table. As for supporting innovation, this may look right in theory, but the problem is that a company that innovates will also (unknowingly) break other's patehts. Even if they apply for a patent, they usually don't sue for fear of being sued on patents they infringed. The only companies that can sue and make money off patents are companies that don't sell or produce anything because they're the only ones that can't be counter-sued for infringement.
(expanding a bit on my earlier comment) I've read the license quickly and I can definitely say that section 3F will cause problems. Requiring registration does not meet the open-source definition, nor the Debian free software guideline. It discriminates people who either 1) do not have access to the Internel (the "desert island" test) 2) people who can't say they are using the software (the "chinese dissident" test). It also prevents any inclusion in a distribution because it implies that merely buying a Linux distribution that includes the software requires you to register it. If you forget, you are breaking the law (just imagine if all software was released under this license).
Last thing, by requiring registration, this license seems to cover the *use* of the software, going even further that what copyright law requests. The GPL gives you rights that copyright law alone does not give you (e.g. right to redistribute the code), but it does not *remove* rights (line the right to use the software without telling anyone). This also means that to be valid, the license would actually have to be signed (hence it becomes a contract). The GPL (or other free software licenses) does not require that since it only gives you additional rights (if you don't agree to the GPL, you still have all rights provided by copyright laws).
...each Recipient, upon receipt of the Subject Software, is requested to register with NASA by visiting the following website...
I doubt this statement satisfies the open-source definition. I am *certain* that it doesn't satisfy the Debian Free Software definition, because it fails both the "desert island" and the "chinese dissident" tests.
Slashdot Mirror
How much is your life worth? How much to take it away? Say a price.
That's it, I'm starting the "Pray for AIDS to Go Away" movement.
I'm not saying they should be paid... What I don't like to see is someone is adding something silly ("hey, let's sell stuff on the net") to a much larger work (the Internet) and then claiming he owns everything because he has put so much work and talent in it.
There are many well-run organizations under the UN, like the World Health Organization. For telecom, there's already the ITU. While not being a model of good performance, I don't think it's worse than other telecom organizations either.
Otherwise, what do you propose anyway. Leave it with ICANN? To Bush?
Let me see, the guys who invented Ethernet, IP, DNS, HTTP, ... don't get a dime (from patents at least), but the guy who said "hey, I think eventually someone will use that to sell stuff" gets all the money. Sounds fair?
at least until a legislative change was made, such as making ICANN into a government regulatory agency
<sarcasm>Why would you want the French government to control the Internet?</sarcasm>
Seriously, the Internet needs to be controlled by the UN or something like that.
You got it completely backwards. You need to convince the DRM developer that his scheme is unbreakable and that no further review will help. Then you convince all the media companies to make them standard. ...and then you break it (see DVD CSS) and you're able to use the CD/DVD you bought as you please.
I wouldn't go that far, even though I don't like biometrics. Imagine a system that takes a blood test from you and checks the DNA. While not practical (at all), it would be near-impossible to fool, assuming a semi-smart system that can check it really found flesh and not a bag of blood.
Actually, it is possible to insert a signature without making the code obfuscated. One example is by playing with white spaces. It is, however, very easy to remove if you suspect there's a watermark in the code. A more clever method would slightly play with the style in general, but I don't think it could be robust enough. If you want to protect open-source code, you just mail it to yourself (to prove you wrote it) and then use a comparator like the one from ESR.
Probably. And that's exactly why the FSF suggests saying that you may redistribute under GPL version 2 *or later*.
Yes. That's why in my comment I also included a newline after the "}".
int main()
{
return 0;
}
Remind me what doesn't compile here?
Spreading worms/virus is already a computer crime and can probably get you at least 5 years (if not more). How many of those spammers do you see in jail?
It ends with }
The solution is to find a way to make e-mail cost money to use. It's only because e-mail is so cheep to abuse that spam is so prevalent.
You really think that? Ever heard of spammers making worms/virus so their spam gets sent from other machines? If email costs money, the bill would get paid by these people not the spammers (and the spam would continue).
Personally, I do not find the new XFree86 license to be unreasonable, or incompatible with the GPL.
So GPL-compatibility is a matter of personal appreciation now? I believe that if they (Mandrake, Debian, probably more soon) decide not to ship 4.4, there must be a valid reason. BTW, sometimes a license if must very slightly annoying and you're tempted to go with it anyway. That may work fine... until you end up with 1000 packages with "just slightly annoying" licenses and the whole requirement becomes "really really annoying".
No word on whether it can be user-disabled
Ever heard of the "cisors" algorithm?
Actually, Bell Canada, while not Quebec only is still very present here. I think I'll consider to switch...
This is not a matter of choosing software based on our political ideals. Just imagine buying a Mandrake 15 DVD set and then discovering there are 185 different programs you need to register before you are allowed to install. Sounds fun? Now, as some people pointed out, the registration is not mandatory, but it if were, it's not just something "only free software zealots" care about.
I disagree that only companies that don't make things benefit from patents. They can help the little guy, too. They keep the big guys from just taking the innovations from the little guy and using them.
The problem here is that the little guy probably infringe on many of the big guy's (trivial) patents. That allows the big guy to take the innovating idea anyway, because if little guy sues, he's counter-sued for patent infringement. Also, what small inventor has the resources to sue Microsoft or IBM in the first place. Right now, I think patents only benefit:
1) The big guy wanting to squash the little guy (who doesn't infringe at least one patent from a large company)
2) The "medium guy" who doesn't sell anything and want to sue the big guy
Then I think that a clarification would really help. Most of the time the author wants something like that, it's phrased as "as a matter of courtesy, the author would like to be informed of use...".
it puts food on the table. It gives the species the solid base to support the innovators, who do oftentimes get it wrong after all.
See, I think patents more often take food *away* from the table. As for supporting innovation, this may look right in theory, but the problem is that a company that innovates will also (unknowingly) break other's patehts. Even if they apply for a patent, they usually don't sue for fear of being sued on patents they infringed. The only companies that can sue and make money off patents are companies that don't sell or produce anything because they're the only ones that can't be counter-sued for infringement.
(expanding a bit on my earlier comment)
I've read the license quickly and I can definitely say that section 3F will cause problems. Requiring registration does not meet the open-source definition, nor the Debian free software guideline. It discriminates people who either 1) do not have access to the Internel (the "desert island" test) 2) people who can't say they are using the software (the "chinese dissident" test). It also prevents any inclusion in a distribution because it implies that merely buying a Linux distribution that includes the software requires you to register it. If you forget, you are breaking the law (just imagine if all software was released under this license).
Last thing, by requiring registration, this license seems to cover the *use* of the software, going even further that what copyright law requests. The GPL gives you rights that copyright law alone does not give you (e.g. right to redistribute the code), but it does not *remove* rights (line the right to use the software without telling anyone). This also means that to be valid, the license would actually have to be signed (hence it becomes a contract). The GPL (or other free software licenses) does not require that since it only gives you additional rights (if you don't agree to the GPL, you still have all rights provided by copyright laws).
...each Recipient, upon receipt of the Subject
Software, is requested to register with NASA by visiting the following
website...
I doubt this statement satisfies the open-source definition. I am *certain* that it doesn't satisfy the Debian Free Software definition, because it fails both the "desert island" and the "chinese dissident" tests.
No need for Rawhide. I've been running FC1 with a 2.6 since 2.6.0-test11 and I've had no problem so far.