There is a lesser-known but even simpler extensible protocol designed to do the same thing as BXXP. The draft was published in February 1999 and expired unchanged in August 1999. Have a look at the draft defining Extensible Protocol (XP).
Not satisfied to rip the shroud off the recording cartels, which everybody knew to be corrupt anyway, she turns the bright light of reason on our own industry as well!
... a year ago... anything dot-com sounded smarter than the rest of us, but the scam has been uncovered. I did a chat today, twice. Big damn deal. 200 bucks for the software and some elbow grease and a good back-end coder.
Courtney, I'll show you a good back-end coder. Yeah baby.
Isn't the idea that they actually deposit silicon on top of an insulating layer, rather than just using the silicon that's part of the substrate as in normal designs?
The 'problem' stems directly from the fact that only a limited number of people have the ability to post original stories. Maybe anyone with a certain moderation score should be able to do that.
With regard to the last sentence... I think you are saying that every firewall lets HTTP through. But that means firewalls add no value to these sorts of things.
It's a shame that everything in the world is getting tunneled through HTTP for this reason.
When the same law firm represents both sides on "Ally McBeal," there doesn't seem to be any problem. Hmmm... I'm starting to think maybe that show is a little unrealistic.
Some might find this interesting... this was the last is a brief series of communications I had with Apple early this past April regarding them waking up, smelling the coffee, and actively pursuing the proliferation of the full QT playback engine. This was spurred by the Sorenson-only Star Wars trailer that had just been released.
What I gleaned from this is that, with Sorenson, they are essentially trying to out-Microsoft Microsoft. They are a generation behind in realizing that Microsoft itself is doomed at the hands of open formats.
Subject: Re: Open QT Plea Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 11:17:39 -0700 From: Steve Bannerman To: Practice Corporation
The conclusion we have drawn is that what you really want is for Sorenson to work with other multimedia architectures besides QT. This is a sitcky issue. As you know, we have an exclusive arrangement with Sorenson for QT. This arrangement is based more on Marketing and business issues than it is on technological ones.
I am broaching the subject with executive mgmt, but this is going to require a shift in our corporate philosophy that has significant ramifications in outher areas. We need to fully understand all these issues before we leap into action. In other words, we will not have a resolution to this issue overnight...
The O'Reilly stance reminds me of Americans who think it should be illegal to burn the flag, failing to see that, because the flag itself symbolizes the freedom to burn it, enacting such a law would actually destroy what it was meant to protect.
To say the GPL is coercive, and ought to be superceded, is to say that open source is so important that we have to sacrifice a little bit of its essence in order to ensure its continued existence. It is to say, wrongly, that freedom is so important we must restrict ourselves from burning the flag.
I do agree with Loukides on one point, though. We should be using a carrot and not a stick. The hot rhetoric in the preamble to the GPL belies the fact that, by releasing GPLed software, you are doing something really nice. Why the FSF has chosen to characterize it in the opposite way -- that by NOT using the GPL you are somehow oppressing people -- is beyond me.
Not all of the learning required to use Linix, or any UNIX-like system, is time well-spent.
The Linux command line is hard to use, not just because it IS a command line, and not just because it is terse, expressive and powerful, but also because it is arcane and inconsistent.
If you have an idea and you want to make money from it, set up a service that uses the idea internally. Don't try to charge for identical copies of the output.
I have the utmost respect for Marc, his code, and his contributions to computing freedom, but, lest people be afraid to undertake similar efforts, the truth needs to be known.
He withdrew the CinePak source because Radius threatened legal action, and because Radius paid him to do so.
I have seen no objective proof, only hype from Apple, about how wonderful this codec is. To my eye, it's no better than CinePak. Is it also supposed to be better than MPEG?
Apple is so transparent. Their hard-on for Sorenson is just an attempt to beat Microsoft at its own game of CLOSED PROPRIETARY "standards". We are just incidental roadkill.
Send mail to Fox and Lucasfilm telling them that you couldn't watch their clip, thanks to their choice of "technology".
Just don't make Marc Podlipec really mad, or he might reverse engineer the sucker. He's done it before. What say, Marc?
I suggest you do as RMS does and refuse to use software that isn't free. Then your freedom would remain "unrestricted".
The world would be a better place if all software were free. Probably so much better that people who think they have something to gain by not freeing their software are mistaken. And it's obvious that more and more software WILL be free; BUT
If you want people to free their software, make them feel good about it. Don't badger them into thinking they are doing a disservice by not contributing.
Your example of the recipe is off topic. When you go to a restaurant, do you feel restricted if you do not receive a copy of the recipe when your dinner comes?
>> Congratulations, you have been brainwashed into believing that you can own software (duh, just like you can own cooking recipes and building designs and mathematical formulas...) We are not talking about licensing vs. selling as means of distribution. We are talking about whether it's appropriate to define lack of generosity as restriction.
An author not_GPLing something is only "restrictive" in the sense that he COULD HAVE GIVEN AWAY MORE (the source, the right to modify & distribute, etc.) It's not restrictive in the sense that it takes away something that you already have (like the right to free speech, or water).
Does RMS actually argue that we all have the inalienable right to modify and distribute everything that other people create? That for someone not to offer me those rights is not just a choice not to be altruistic, but an act of oppression?
We own our ideas even more than we own any physical thing. Maybe we should give them away. But we are not restricting others by not doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a lesser-known but even simpler extensible protocol designed to do the same thing as BXXP. The draft was published in February 1999 and expired unchanged in August 1999. Have a look at the draft defining Extensible Protocol (XP).
Not satisfied to rip the shroud off the recording cartels, which everybody knew to be corrupt anyway, she turns the bright light of reason on our own industry as well!
... a year ago ... anything dot-com sounded smarter than the rest of us, but the scam has been uncovered. I did a chat today, twice. Big damn deal. 200 bucks for the software and some elbow grease and a good back-end coder.
Courtney, I'll show you a good back-end coder. Yeah baby.
I ran across this guy , who has collected a bunch of product links and notes on how to wire your house for ethernet.
Isn't the idea that they actually deposit silicon on top of an insulating layer, rather than just using the silicon that's part of the substrate as in normal designs?
Kodak has followed Apple's lead and started offering cameras in different colors like blueberry, tangerine, lime, etc...
Is this the 3-disc version that's reviewed? If not, where can one find it?
All a band has to do is get popular enough that they can go on tour. Then they only have to fight the much scarier monopoly that is Ticketmaster.
Now, if only software developers could go on tour.
The 'problem' stems directly from the fact that only a limited number of people have the ability to post original stories. Maybe anyone with a certain moderation score should be able to do that.
With regard to the last sentence... I think you are saying that every firewall lets HTTP through. But that means firewalls add no value to these sorts of things.
It's a shame that everything in the world is getting tunneled through HTTP for this reason.
When the same law firm represents both sides on "Ally McBeal," there doesn't seem to be any problem. Hmmm... I'm starting to think maybe that show is a little unrealistic.
Some might find this interesting... this was the last is a brief series of communications I had with Apple early this past April regarding them waking up, smelling the coffee, and actively pursuing the proliferation of the full QT playback engine. This was spurred by the Sorenson-only Star Wars trailer that had just been released.
What I gleaned from this is that, with Sorenson, they are essentially trying to out-Microsoft Microsoft. They are a generation behind in realizing that Microsoft itself is doomed at the hands of open formats.
Subject: Re: Open QT Plea
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 11:17:39 -0700
From: Steve Bannerman
To: Practice Corporation
The conclusion we have drawn is that what you really want is for Sorenson to work with other multimedia architectures besides QT. This is a sitcky issue. As you know, we have an exclusive arrangement with Sorenson for QT. This arrangement is based more on Marketing and business issues than it is on technological ones.
I am broaching the subject with executive mgmt, but this is going to require a shift in our corporate philosophy that has significant ramifications in outher areas. We need to fully understand all these issues before we leap into action. In other words, we will not have a resolution to this issue overnight...
steve
...how difficult we make it for someone to take a principled position. Could ESR be trying to convince himself that he hasn't sold out?
Red Hat is already commercial and ownder by companies like Intel and AOL. Going public (changing who the owners are) doesn't change that.
I, too, think the GPL ought to be its own license. Interestingly, RMS's eloquent arguments apply against him in this instance.
If the FSF is concerned about identifying its version, it can still trademark GNU, GPL, and what not, if they haven't already.
The O'Reilly stance reminds me of Americans who think it should be illegal to burn the flag, failing to see that, because the flag itself symbolizes the freedom to burn it, enacting such a law would actually destroy what it was meant to protect.
To say the GPL is coercive, and ought to be superceded, is to say that open source is so important that we have to sacrifice a little bit of its essence in order to ensure its continued existence. It is to say, wrongly, that freedom is so important we must restrict ourselves from burning the flag.
I do agree with Loukides on one point, though. We should be using a carrot and not a stick. The hot rhetoric in the preamble to the GPL belies the fact that, by releasing GPLed software, you are doing something really nice. Why the FSF has chosen to characterize it in the opposite way -- that by NOT using the GPL you are somehow oppressing people -- is beyond me.
May I say something heretical?
Not all of the learning required to use Linix, or any UNIX-like system, is time well-spent.
The Linux command line is hard to use, not just because it IS a command line, and not just because it is terse, expressive and powerful, but also because it is arcane and inconsistent.
This looks like Microsoft's lackey HP helping them kill JINI to me.
What if the supreme court (or pick your favorite high court) issued decisions without telling you how each judge voted?
I want to see who changed the score of a post, when, by how much, and maybe even why.
If you have an idea and you want to make money from it, set up a service that uses the idea internally. Don't try to charge for identical copies of the output.
Now that an Anonymous Coward is telling me Sorenson is better, I believe it. Thanks for lending your credibility.
I have the utmost respect for Marc, his code, and his contributions to computing freedom, but, lest people be afraid to undertake similar efforts, the truth needs to be known.
He withdrew the CinePak source because Radius threatened legal action, and because Radius paid him to do so.
I have seen no objective proof, only hype from Apple, about how wonderful this codec is. To my eye, it's no better than CinePak. Is it also supposed to be better than MPEG?
Apple is so transparent. Their hard-on for Sorenson is just an attempt to beat Microsoft at its own game of CLOSED PROPRIETARY "standards". We are just incidental roadkill.
Send mail to Fox and Lucasfilm telling them that you couldn't watch their clip, thanks to their choice of "technology".
Just don't make Marc Podlipec really mad, or he might reverse engineer the sucker. He's done it before. What say, Marc?
I suggest you do as RMS does and refuse to use software that isn't free. Then your freedom would remain "unrestricted".
The world would be a better place if all software were free. Probably so much better that people who think they have something to gain by not freeing their software are mistaken. And it's obvious that more and more software WILL be free; BUT
If you want people to free their software, make them feel good about it. Don't badger them into thinking they are doing a disservice by not contributing.
Your example of the recipe is off topic. When you go to a restaurant, do you feel restricted if you do not receive a copy of the recipe when your dinner comes?
>> Congratulations, you have been brainwashed into believing that you can own software (duh, just like you can own cooking recipes and building designs and mathematical formulas...)
We are not talking about licensing vs. selling as means of distribution. We are talking about whether it's appropriate to define lack of generosity as restriction.
My point was about the word RESTRICTING.
An author not_GPLing something is only "restrictive" in the sense that he COULD HAVE GIVEN AWAY MORE (the source, the right to modify & distribute, etc.) It's not restrictive in the sense that it takes away something that you already have (like the right to free speech, or water).
Does RMS actually argue that we all have the inalienable right to modify and distribute everything that other people create? That for someone not to offer me those rights is not just a choice not to be altruistic, but an act of oppression?
We own our ideas even more than we own any physical thing. Maybe we should give them away. But we are not restricting others by not doing so.